634-o 







V 



0O y 



/ ^ 









^ : 



.V 















^~ 



' .V 






V V <v c 



^v 






x 1 



r "K 



v- 






V 





ON 



BAPTIST COUNCILS. 



REV. E. T. HISCOX, D.D., 

AUTHOR OF BAPTIST CHURCH DIRECTORY, PASTOR'S MANUAL, SHORT 
METHOD, STAR BOOK SERIES, ETC. 



¥ 



3^ew ¥otik : 

WARD & DRUMMOND, 

Successors to U. D. Ward, 

116 Nassau. Street. 

1881. 



4j£ 



DE. HISCOX'S 

STAR BOOK SERIES. 



The Star Book for Ministers. A Manual for Clergymen 
of all denominations. Contains Scripture Selections for 
Weddings, Funerals, etc., Marriage Forms, Parliamentary 
Rules, Forms and Blanks, with much other matter of ser- 
vice to Clergymen. The most complete Handbook for 
Ministers in the market. Bound in morocco and gold, 
limp. 3d edition, pp 288 Price, $1.00. 

The Star Book on Christian Baptism. This con- 
tains the testimony of more than a hundred and fifty Pe- 
dobaptist scholars to believers' Baptism. An array of un- 
answerable arguments most complete and convincing. 
Third thousand. Paper, pp. 96 Price, 10 cts. 

The Star Book on Baptist Church Polity. This lit- 
tle work contains articles of Faith, with Scripture Refer- 
ences, Church Order and Discipline, Forms and Blanks, 
Rules of Business, etc. It has been adopted by many 
churches as Guide to Church Order. Eighteen thousand 
copies have been published. Paper, pp. 64. 
Price reduced to 6 cts. 

The Star Book on Baptist Councils. This is the only 
treatise known among our churches on the subject of 
Councils. It defines the place of Councils in Baptist Pol- 
ity; their relation to the churches; the principles on which 
they rest; the occasions when they may be used, and the 
rules by which their action should be guided. Just out. 
Paper, pp. 130 Price, 25 cts. 



* + *Any of the above will be sent by mail, post-paid, on 
receipt of the price, by 

WARD & DRUMMOND, 

Successors to TJ. D. WARD, 

n6 Nassau Street, New York. 



THE 



STAR BOOK 



ON 



BAPTIST COUNCILS. 



Eev. e. t. htsoox, d.d. 



AUTHOR OF "BAPTIST CHURCH DIRECTORY," " PASTOR' S MAN- 
UAL," "BAPTIST SHORT METHOD," u STAR 
BOOK SERIES," ET£ 

OF 



NEW 
WABD & DR 

116 Nassau Street? 
1881. 



APR 20 1881 

No...:... 



W' 









<%& 



COPYBIGHT 1881, BY E. T. HlSCOX. 



PEEFACE. 



Councils are in quite common and somewhat 
extensive use among Baptists, sometimes for 
good, and sometimes for evil. Whether more fre- 
quently for good than evil, is not quite apparent 
to thoughtful minds. Much has been written 
on the subject in specific cases, doubtless much 
that was well and wisely written, and worthy 
of preservation. But it has been chiefly in tran- 
sient articles, which have perished from public 
notice. Almost nothing on the subject has ap- 
peared, of a permanent character, which has passed 
into the literature of the denomination. And 
no work, either large or small, on this specific sub- 
ject, has, to the writer's knowledge, ever been at- 
tempted. 

The purpose of the following pages is to supply 
to some extent the want so long existing, and to 
furnish a compend of the principles on which 
Councils rest, and the rules by which their action 
should be governed. No attempt has here, of 
course, been made to establish the Baptist theory 
of Church polity. That has been assumed. But 



the sphere, limits and uses of Councils, in relation 
to that theory, is attempted to be shown. 

The writer cannot hope that all will agree with 
every statement he has made; but from a pretty 
long experience, and wide observation, and a care- 
ful study of principles involved, he feels confident 
that those who attentively examine the founda- 
tions of things, will come more and more to agree 
in the views here presented. 

With the desire that this little work may con- 
tribute to uniformity of action and to general 
harmony among the Churches, the author submits 
what he has written, and adds, that any sugges- 
tions from his brethren would be most welcome 
for future editions. 

E. T. H. 

New Yoke, Dec. tth, 1880 



BAPTIST COUNCILS. 



Councils, for consultation and advice, 
are an established usage with American 
Baptists, especially in the North, East and 
West. Among Southern Baptists there has 
been so strong a prejudice, lest their action 
should assume to be authoritative, and 
threaten a domination of the Churches, 
that they are seldom resorted to in that 
section. 

Indeed, through all parts of our country 
and in all sections of our denomination, 
Councils, when resorted to, have been 
watched with jealous care and regarded 
with not a little of suspicion, lest they 
might grow to an interference with the 
strict independence of the Churches. This 
doctrine of Church independence being 
held by them as particularly sacred, both 
because they believe it the true New Testa- 



6 



ment polity, and also because of the wrongs 
perpetrated upon the true people of God, 
during past ages, by acts of Councils and 
Papal decrees, in the name of ecclesiastical 
authority. 

Hence Baptists watch with commendable 
vigilance against every combination of men, 
and every form of action, which may have a 
tendency to, or by possibilit} r may threaten 
an assumption of ecclesiastical authority 
over, or interference with the free and 
independent action of the individual 
Churches. Thus it came to pass, in earlier 
days, when Churches were less numerous 
and more scattered, and advice in perplex- 
ing cases was less readily obtained, that 
Churches vexed with difficult questions of 
doctrine or practice would sometimes ask 
advice of the Associations at their annual 
meetings, that they might be helped by the 
wisdom of their brethren. But very com- 
monly the Associations either declined to 
respond to such questions altogether, lest 
they might come to be regarded as a court 
of appeal, or, if they did reply, would also 






state that they could in no ease dictate to 
the Churches, nor interfere with their in- 
ternal order in any wise. 

It is indisputable that Councils have at 
times done great good to Churches and to 
individuals, by prudent and well-considered 
advice, in cases of great moment and great 
perplexity. It is equally indisputable that 
at times they have been the occasion of 
much harm, and of manifest injustice to 
individuals and to Churches, by decisions 
hastily reached, or based on false assump- 
tions. And whether on the whole they 
have been productive of more good than 
evil, is still an unsettled question with 
those who have known them the longest, 
and watched them the most carefully. The 
constant danger is a tendency to recognize 
in them, in some sense, the powers of a 
court of arbitration in effect, if not in form. 
And the danger of this tendency is the 
greater, because there will always be among 
us some who think they see the need of a 
stronger government for the control of vir- 
ulent disorders than the independency of 



8 

the Churches furnishes. They desire some 
more speedy and more effectual method of 
removing rank offenses than the slow and 
uncertain processes of Church discipline. 
They would therefore welcome Council ac- 
tion whose moral force, to say the least, 
should approach very near to ecclesiastical 
dictation. But such tendencies have thus 
far been counteracted by that innate aj)- 
prehension with which the Baptist mind 
regards any possible trenching on the in- 
dependency of the Churches, and stands 
guard against the interference of any exter- 
nal authority whatever, beyond the simple 
act of giving advice, when advice is asked. 



The Origin of Councils. 

It has generally been taken for granted, 
by both Papal and Protestant authorities, 
that all Church Councils have their origin 
in the meeting held in Jerusalem, as de- 
scribed in the 15th chapter of the Acts, 
convened to consider questions which had 
disturbed the Gentile Churches, and to ad- 



vise concerning the same. That meeting, 
it is claimed, was a Council somewhat with- 
in the accepted meaning of that term. And 
it is quite notable, not to say remarkable, 
that all men, and all classes of men, have, 
with an easy liberality of interpretation, ex- 
plained that primitive conference to meet 
their own peculiar views of Council need, 
and of Council action. Whether Papal or 
Protestant, ultra-prelatical or moderately 
congregational, every man who desires to 
find some central authority, some Church 
court to settle disputed questions, and to 
control or coerce Church action, claims to 
find a warrant for his particular theory in 
"the Council held in Jerusalem." That is 
declared to have been of Apostolical au- 
thority; and an appeal to the 15th chapter 
of Acts is assumed to be an end of all con- 
troversy. 

That meeting of the apostles, elders and 
brethren, under the immediate guidance 
of the Holy Ghost, to advise the Gentile 
Churches, touching no question of funda- 
mental doctrine or of Church order, but 



10 



concerning* certain conditions of Church fel- 
lowship, has been made the warrant and 
justification for ages of spiritual tyranny 
exercised over the Churches of Christ, and 
over the freedom of Christian thought and 
Christian action, by men ambitious to lord 
it over God's heritage. 

Men, whether cleric or laic, who have 
been desirous of controlling Churches to 
subserve their own peculiar views, or of 
shaping the currents of organized Chris- 
tain effort to further their own projects, 
have found no readier method by which to 
secure their purpose, than to procure the 
decisions of persons assumed to be repre- 
sentatives of the Churches, which decisions 
might be pleaded as a substantially author- 
itative settlement of disputed questions. 
By this means Christian liberty, and almost 
spiritual life have been crushed out of 
Christ's free Churches, and the flock of God 
has been made a prey to the rapacity of 
men whose spiritual pride blinded them to 
the true methods of the gospel. And all 
under the shield of the misunderstood 
meeting at Jerusalem. 



11 



Baptists even, are sometimes found, who 
illy conceal their regret that our ecclesias- 
tical polity does not admit of some strong 
central authority to hold in check Church 
independency, which will sometimes swing 
to unwise and perilous extremes. Such 
men ought to be Presbyterians or Prelat- 
ists. They seem fitted, neither by nature, 
grace, nor habit for the Baptistic polity. 
But the common resort for a settlement of 
ecclesiastical difficulties and disputed ques- 
tions is a Council. And the Council at 
Jerusalem is cited with confidence to sanc- 
tion the reference of Church difficulties to 
such a tribunal. 

Our denomination has always feared 
Councils, has deprecated Councils, and yet 
has used them — within narrow limits, and 
with great caution. Perhaps so long as 
they are feared and deprecated, there is 
less danger of doing harm. So long as 
they are regarded with suspicion, there is 
less danger of their transcending the realm 
of the absolutely " advisory,'' and assum- 
ing the attitude of judicatories. Undoubt- 



12 

edly there are occasions when good results 
from the calm and prudent advice of a 
Council. But it is a grave question for our 
Churches to consider, whether the advan- 
tages warrant the maintenance of the sys- 
tem. It is a grave question whether the 
maintenance of Councils for the considera- 
tions of questions relating to the internal 
life of the Churches, is not a standing men- 
ace to the independency of the Churches. 

But to come back to the 15th chapter of 
Acts, and the " Council at Jerusalem." Was 
it a Council in any historical or properly ac- 
cepted understanding of that term ? No. 
The answer is inevitable, whatever view 
one may take of the proper sphere or the 
authority of Councils, as bodies convened 
for the settlements of theological or eccles- 
iastical questions. 

1. For, in the first place, the consulting 
body was composed of the real aggregate 
Church at Jerusalem. "While Councils of 
whatever kind, are supposed to be com- 
posed, not of aggregated Churches, but of 
delegates from confederated Churches, more 



13 

or less representing the Churches which ap- 
point them. Though in our Baptist theory 
there can be no body representing the 
Churches in any proper sense. A Baptist 
Church cannot delegate its authority to any 
man or body of men, who shall act for it, 
and bind it by their action. It can desig- 
nate messengers, who shall bear messages 
from it, and bring messages to it. But 
there can be no relegation or transmission 
of the Church's authority to, or through any 
other persons whatever. 

Now, of the composition of the body, 
miscalled a Council, at Jerusalem, we read: 
' ■ And when they were come to Jerusalem, 
they were received of the Church, and of the 
apostles, and elders" — Actsxv.,4. They were 
received, not by a delegation, constituting 
a Council, but by the Church, including in 
its membership, the apostles and elders. 
" And the apostles and elders came to- 
gether to consider of this matter." — Acts xv., 
6. Not the apostles and elders alone, but 
with the Church, as is evident from verse 
12: "Then all the multitude kept silence." 



14 



And further, and conclusively, verse 22: 
" Then pleased it the apostles, and elders, 
with the whole Church, to send chosen men 
of their own company to Antioch, with 
Paul and Barnabas." The three estates 
composing the Church are mentioned; and 
the " whole Church " is particularly desig- 
nated as the body w 7 hich heard the case, 
and took action in respect to it. 

Moreover, they decided to send the re- 
sults of their deliberation, in a written docu- 
ment to the Christians in Syria, which their 
messengers should bear. That document 
was sent, not in the name of a Council, 
nor of any selected set of representative 
men, but in the name of the entire Church. 
The letter was written after this manner: 
"The apostles, and elders, and brethren 
send greeting," verse 23. The three es- 
tates composing that Church are here again 
named as ' c apostles," ' ' elders," and " breth- 
ren." The entire Church as a body, and 
no official representatives of it, speak in the 
letter sent: "For it seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost, and to us," verse 28. The 



15 



" we " and the " us " in the statement have 
just that comprehension and no other. 
The document sent to the Syrian Churches 
was in no manner a " decree/' as it has 
usually been termed, in the sense of an au- 
thoritative dictation, although it had the 
authority of being infallible, as being ad- 
vice dictated by the Holy Ghost. In the 
23d verse it is termed " letters," in the 30th 
verse it is called an " epistle," in respect to 
the form of it. In chap. xvi. 4, it is termed 
(i decrees/' dogmata, opinions, recommenda- 
tions, rules — in respect to the substance of 
it. 

2. In the second place, the consulting 
body to which the question was referred 
or disposition, was composed of the mem- 
bers of a single Church, while Councils are 
supposed to be composed of the represent- 
atives or messengers of several Churches. 
The assembled members of a single Church, 
convened for consultation, would be called 
a Church-meeting, and could by no stretch 
of the imagination be considered a Council 
in any historical sense. 



16 



Some writer has remarked that this Jeru- 
salem Council was composed of the dele- 
gates of two Churches, that at Antioch and 
that at Jerusalem. It must be a very care- 
less reader who could make such a state- 
ment. The messengers of the Church at 
Antioch were present to make their state- 
ment, and give any needful information. 
But it was the Church at Jerusalem alone 
which was to hear and to judge the case. 
It was not a Council, but a Church, which 
was convened at the request of another 
Church, to express an opinion, and give ad- 
vice on a perplexing question. The body at 
Jerusalem was the mother Church, contain- 
ing many of the disciples of our Lord, as 
well as the first converts after His ascen- 
sion, and especially holding His inspired 
apostles. It was, therefore, the proper body 
to apply to for fraternal advice, not for an 
authoritative ecclesiastical decree. The ad- 
vice was indeed decisive on the question 
which it embraced; decisive, not because it 
emanated from apostles, and elders and the 
whole Church, but because it was inspired. 



17 



Because " it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, 
and to us." 

3. In the third place, therefore, the con- 
sulting body at Jerusalem was not an or- 
ganic form of ecclesiastical life, distinct and 
seperate from the Churches, to act on and 
determine questions for the Churches. It 
was a Church-meeting simple and identical, 
and nothing else. Christ constituted but 
one Christian society, but one organic form 
of Christian life — -the Church. Nor did His 
inspired apostles institute another and a 
separate one. The Church was all. Neither 
was it determined that a Church should act 
ordinarily as a Church, for the management 
of its own internal affairs, and then on spe- 
cial and extraordinary occasions to be 
transformed into a Council, to judge matters 
external to itself, and decide questions for 
other Churches. But one Church might, as 
the Church at Antioch did, ask advice of 
another Church touching a matter which 
that other Church was supposed to be bet- 
ter qualified to answer than itself. 

Was it therefore a Council? No; it was. 



18 



a Church-meeting simply. And so far 
from being a warrant to hold in check the 
freest action of Church independence, the 
whole proceeding justifies the freest action 
of Church independence. Because one 
Church exercised its independence by ask- 
ing advice when it felt the need of it, and 
another Church exercised its independence 
by giving the advice asked. 

Hackett says of this so-called Council: 
" This assembly is often called the first 
Christian Council, but we must use some 
license to apply the term in that way." 
' f The apostles and elders are mentioned on 
account of their rank, not as composing the 
entire assembly." 1 

Alford, who, as a Prelatist, would be like- 
ly to accept Councils in the historical sense, 
nevertheless says : " The apostles and elders 
only are mentioned as having assembled, in 
which case ' all the multitude ' must mean 
of the presbyters. But most probably the 
deliberation of the apostles and elders im- 

1 Com. on Acts, 15, 6. 



19 



plied the presence of the brethren also, 
who are intended by c all the multitude. ' " l 

Neander says : " The whole Church was 
far too numerous to allow of all its members 
meeting for consultation, but that they took 
part in the deliberations appears inferable 
from the words, £ with the whole Church/ 
verse 22. The epistle to the Gentile Chris- 
tians was written in the name, not merely 
of the elders of the Church, but of all the 
Christian Brethren." 2 

Schaff says: "The most complete out- 
ward representation of the apostolic Church 
as a teaching and legislative body was the 
Council convened at Jerusalem." "It con- 
sisted of the apostle, elders and breth- 
ren. " " The transactions were public before 
the congregation; the apostles and elders 
framed the decree, not without, but c with 
the whole Church', and sent the circular 
letter, not in their own name only, but also 
in the name of the brethren." 3 

Mosheim places the matter in a clear and 

1 Com. on Acts, 15, 6. 

2 Planting and Training, p. 125, Note. 

3 Church History, Volume 1, p. 136, Section 43. 



20 



positive light as follows: " It is commonly 
said that the meeting of the Church in Jeru- 
salem, which is described in Acts xv., was 
the first Christian Council. But this is a 
perversion of the import of the Council. 
For that meeting was a conference of only 
a single Church, collected together for de- 
liberation, and if such meetings may be 
called ecclesiastical Councils, a multitude of 
them were held in those primitive times. 
An ecclesiastical Council is a meeting of 
delegates from a number of confederate 
Churches." 1 

Waddixgton, himself a Church of England 
Prelatist, in his Church history endorses the 
view of Mosheim, that there was no vestige 
of ecclesiastical Councils in the first century 
after Christ, and says, " We believe the view 
of Mosheim on this subject to be very near- 
ly correct." 2 

"We may again ask, was it a Council? 
And still the answer will be, No. 

1 Ecclesiastical History, Volume 1, p. 72, Section 
14, Note 17. 

2 Church History, p. 44, Note. 



21 



How Councils Aeose. 

It must therefore be conceded that Coun- 
cils are of human, not of divine origin, and 
have no New Testament precedent to give 
their decisions authority. 

"Tertullian speaks of the ecclesiastical 
assemblies of the Asiatics and European 
Greeks, as a human institution; and in a 
letter written by Firmilian, Bishop of Caes- 
area, to Cyprian about the middle of the 
third century, the same custom is referred 
to merely as a convenient arrangement ex- 
isting at that time among the Churches of 
Asia Minor, for common deliberation on 
matters of extraordinary importance." 1 

Dr. Coleman says : " The apostolic 
Churches were entirely independent of each 
other. Each individual Church assumed 
the form of a little distinct republic or com- 
monwealth; and with regard to its internal 
concerns, was entirely regulated by a code 
of laws which may, indeed, have been de- 
rived from the apostles, but were received 

1 Cyclo. Bib. Lit. Art. Councils. 



22 



and sanctioned by the people constituting 
the Church. But in the second century 
this primitive liberty and independence 
began to be relinquished, and merged in a 
confederation of the Churches of a province 
or country, into a larger association. " " Who- 
ever may have been the authors of this 
original confederation, it certainly had its 
origin in Greece." "They [Councils] were 
appointed by merely human authority, and 
were regarded as being instituted neither 
by Christ nor by his apostles." 1 

In these opinions nearly all the standard 
writers on Church history and Christian 
antiquities agree. So do the fathers of 
New England Congregationalism. 

Dr. Emmons said: "All the present dis- 
putes about Councils, mutual or ex parte, in 
respect to their authority, are vain and use- 
less, because they have no divine authority 
at all." " The human device of giving power 
to Associations or Consociations, or Councils, 
to decide in ecclesiastical causes, has been 

1 Ancient Christ. Exem., pp. 475, 476. 



23 



a fruitful source of ecclesiastical injustice, 
tyranny and persecution." 1 

Dk. Mosheim says: "Nor does there ap- 
pear in this first century any vestige of that 
consociation of the Churches of the same 
province which gave rise to ecclesiastical 
Councils. But rather, as is manifest, it was 
not till the second century that the custom 
of holding ecclesiastical Councils first began 
in Greece,- and thence extended into other 
provinces." 2 

There is, however, a sense in which the 
Apostolical Conference may be said to have 
contained the germ of subsequent Councils. 
It is the dictate of common reason and of 
Christian prudence alike, for persons deal- 
ing with grave and difficult matters, espe- 
cially if they be new and unfamiliar, to 
seek advice of those supposed to be better 
informed by study or experience, whose 

1 Emmons' Works, Vol. 3, pp. 584, 586. See 
Dexter's Cong, for other similar citations, pp. 60, 
61. Notes. 

2 Eccl. Hist. B. I. Cent. I. Part 2; Oh. 2; Sec. 
14. 



24 



counsel can instruct their minds and guide 
their action more safely. In a multitude 
of counselors, also, there may be safety; 
and a larger number of wise and pious men, 
viewing a question from different points, 
and with unbiassed judgments, will be 
more likely to reach a safe and wise con- 
clusion than a smaller number, of less ex- 
perience, who are personally interested in 
it. This explains the philosophy on which 
rest Councils, committees of reference, and 
other similar appliances, as used by the 
Baptists. The fellowship of individuals and 
the fraternity of Churches lead Christian 
men to desire concurrence in matters of 
local interest, and as far as may be to se- 
cure uniformity in matters of general wel- 
fare. 

A consideration of Councils, in the gen- 
eral ecclesiastical and historical sense 
would be of little interest here, and of no 
profit, save, perhaps, to make Christian 
men the more detest religious oppression, 
of which they have so largely been the in- 
struments. Both the Greek and Latin 



25 



Churches agree in recognizing seven gen- 
eral or ecumenical Councils, whose decrees 
are held to be binding on all Christians: 
1. The Apostolical Council, so-called, at 
Jerusalem. 2. The First Council of Nice, 
A. D. 325. 3. The First Council of Con- 
stantinople, A. D. 381. 4. The First Coun- 
cil of Ephesus, A. D. 431. 5. The Council 
of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 6. The Second 
Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553. 7. 
The Third Council of Constantinople, A. 
D. 681. Beside these, the Catholic Church 
name many others, which they hold as gen- 
eral ; while provincial councils are recorded 
in great numbers. 

The Congregationalists, who approach 
more nearly in their Church polity to the 
independency of the Baptist Churches than 
any other considerable denomination, also 
have Councils. Theirs, as w T ell as ours, in 
theory are strictly advisory. They disclaim 
the exercise of any authority over the 
Churches. They have, however, put forth 
confessions of faith and platforms of discip- 
line which Baptist Councils would not ven- 



26 



ture to do. And it cannot be denied that 
their synods and Councils, whether local or 
general, tend to transcend the sphere of 
the simply advisory, and approach that of 
Presbyterian Church courts. 1 

They have, also, beside their local and 
State synods, held six general Councils, rep- 
resenting the entire denomination. They 
reject standing judicatories, and declare 
that synods, whether local or general, are 
not for authority, but for advice, and to de- 
clare the concurrent agreement of the de- 
nomination in matters of faith and prac- 
tice. 1. The first general Council was held 
in 1637, in Cambridge, Mass., to deliberate 
on doctrinal matters, and was composed of 
all the ministers and of lay messengers from 
the Churches of the country. 2. The second 
was held at Cambridge, Mass., in 1646. It- 
put forth the "Westminster Assembly's Con- 
fession of Faith, and a statement of Church 
polity kiiowi) as the Cambridge Platform. 

1 What Dexter calls Congregationalism Presby- 
terianized. See Platform of Boston Cong. Gen. 
Council of 1865. 



27 

3. The third was held in Albany, N. Y., in 
1852, and, like the others was composed of the 
pastor and one delegate from each Church. 
Its deliberations resulted in dissolving the 
union between Presbyterians and Congre- 
gationalists. 4. The fourth was held in 
Boston, Mass., 1865, and was known as the 
" National Council. " It deliberated on the 
religious duty of the denomination, and put 
forth a Declaration of Faith, and a revised 
Platform of Church Polity. 1 5. The fifth 
was held in Detroit, Mich., 1877, and de- 
voted its attention chiefly to the benevolent 
work of the denomination; largely to its 
Church building, home mission work, and 
ministerial sustenance operations. 6. Its 
sixth and last was held November, 1880, in 
St. Louis, Mo. The principal work it was 
expected to undertake was the putting 
forth of a revised Confession and Platform. 
But so strong was the opposition, that it 
was not attempted, but referred to private 
hands. Their Councils are now to be held 
triennially. 

1 See Cycle Bib. Lit. Art. Congregationalists. 



The Synod of Connecticut, which met in 
Say brook, 1708, framed the somewhat 
famous " Saybrook Platform " of discipline 
and established the Consociation system of 
order and discipline for the churches in that 
State. This ' ' Platform " was substantially 
the " Savoy Confession," adopted by the 
English Independents in 1658; and the 
Savoy was the Westminster Confession, 
modified on the subject of Church govern- 
ment, and in some other respects adapting 
it to Congregational use. 1 

Local Councils are called for ordination 
of ministers, recognition of churches, and 
the adjustment of difficulties as among our- 
selves. In Connecticut the Consociation 
plan prevails, and is the nearest approach 
to Presbyterianism in that body of Chris- 
tians. A Consociation is composed of the 
pastor and one delegate from each Church 
in a county, or some smaller district; and 
these constitute and act as a standing 
court to perform all those services usually 

1 See Neal's Hist. Puritans, Vol. II., 178. 



29 



devolved on Councils. Their acts are con- 
sidered as quasi-authoritative, and both 
Churches and ministers are expected to 
abide by their decisions. 1 

Baptists would regard with suspicion, if 
not with alarm, the standing of any such 
body of men to take cognizance of and 
adjudicate on matters pertaining to the 
Churches. They would repel any move- 
ment towards the calling of a national 
Council for any purpose, and would utterly 
repudiate the issue, by such a Council, if 
called, of any statement of faith, or any 
platform of polity for the Churches. 2 Uni- 

1 See Dexter on Congregationalism, p. 221. 

2 Of the late sixth Council, held in St. Louis, 
one of the members, Rev. Washington Gladden, 
writes in the Independent of Nov. 25th, 1880, as 
follows: "It is indeed matter of sincere con- 
gratulation that an assembly with so many tempta- 
tions should have done so little mischief." " This 
negative result is really the best result of the 
Council. What it did not do is more significant 
and encouraging than what it did do." " The meet, 
ing was not, however, wholly destitute of inspira- 
tion and profit." " There would have been a sharp 



30 



formity would be purchased at too great a 
cost by such a step in the direction of eccle- 
siastical legislation. 

When usage becomes uniform, it is not 
difficult to have it acknowledged as essen- 
tial; and when it is conceded as essential, 
it has already become authoritative. There 
are those, circles of ministers and Churches, 
and possibly local journals, which already 
hold that, in certain ecclesiastical matters, 
Councils are absolutely essential to ortho- 
doxy. That a man cannot be properly in- 
ducted into the ministry or deposed from 
it, and that a newly-organized Church can- 
not be rightly admitted to the sisterhood of 

fight on any action looking toward the adoption 
of a creed by the Council." The adoption and pro- 
mulgation of a reformed creed had by many been 
considered the most important work to be under- 
taken. But this the Council did not venture on 
account of the opposition, but handed the work 
over to a commission and to private individuals 
to be done, without official responsibility. • " A 
strong tendency in the body towards centraliza- 
tion " was manifested, though, of course, stoutly 
opposed. 



31 

Churches without the sanction of a Coun- 
cil. The assumption is false, and the posi- 
tion perilous. It would be the erection of 
a Church tribunal outside the Church it- 
self. Nor does ifc change the nature of the 
case, or the evil of the tendency, to hold 
that it is for the promotion of good order 
and the suppression of disorder. Disorder 
can be suppressed and good order promoted 
by other and better means than for Coun- 
cils to assume dictatorship. Kept within 
their legitimate sphere, and held to their 
legitimate purpose, they are safe, and may 
be productive of great good. But they 
should be used with watchfulness and care, 
especially by Baptists. Their possible per- 
version need not wholly condemn them, 
nor their probable benefits unduly com- 
mend them. 



Fundamental Pbinctples. 

Since, therefore, Councils are allowable, 
and .are an established usage of Baptists, 
and since they are beneficial if rightly used, 
and evil only where misused, it becomes im- 
portant accurately to understand the prin- 
ciples on which they rest, and by which 
they are limited, and the rules by whicii 
their action should be guided. 

The following fundamental principles are 
to be kept constantly in mind, and in no 
case to be transcended or invaded: 

I. The Independency of the Churches. 

Each particular and individual Gospel 
Church is actually and absolutely independ- 
ent in the exercise of all its churchly 
rights, prerogatives and privileges, of all 
other Churches, individuals and bodies of 
men, whatever, and is under law to Christ 
alone. The will and law of Christ are to be 
found in the New Testament, which is the 
only authoritative statute-book for His 
Churches. 



33 



This statement is broad and comprehen- 
sive, and needs not defense, but explanation 
only. That independency is the true form 
of Church government, as opposed to Pres- 
byterianism and prelacy, will not here be 
argued, but is assumed, as accepted by all 
Baptists, as that which is taught in the New 
Testament, verified by primitive Church 
history, and justified by the genius of the 
Gospel itself. But ail human liberty is un- 
der limitations: it is not absolute. What 
limits the Church's independence ? 

1. The liberty which the independence 
of the Church exercises is limited by the 
laws of Christ, as expressed or clearly im- 
plied in the Scriptures. The Church is 
not a legislative body, but an adminis- 
trative body; it cannot make laws, but only 
execute those divinely prepared for it. But 
the Church is the interpreter of those laws 
for itself; not for others. Nor can others 
interpret them for it. The opinions of the 
wise and good have their weight and value, 
but no man, or body of men, external to it- 
self, can become authoritative interpreters 



34 



of the Word of God to a Church, or compel 
submission to their interpretation. 

Churches may perform many unwise and 
unjustifiable acts. They may misinterpret or 
misapply the law, or even openly do violence 
to both the spirit and the letter of it. But 
there is no human tribunal, except that of 
public opinion, to which they can be brought 
for trial and punishment. Others, in the 
exercise of their personal or Church liberty, 
may condemn their acts, may disclaim all 
responsibility in connection with them, and 
withdraw their fellowship. But further 
they cannot go, except by the moral force 
of their dissent or condemnation. And it 
is fortunate that such is the case, for to 
crush liberty and destroy independency in 
the Church of Christ would be a greater 
calamity than to bear all the evils which 
may spring from a misunderstanding of the 
one, or a misuse of the other. 

2. The independency of a Church is lim- 
ited, so far as its corporate acts are con- 
cerned, or any question of personal rights 
or legal equity may be regarded, - by the 



35 

laws of the State in which it may be located. 
Most Churches, by an organized " society," 
or in some other way, hold relations to civil 
law in order to enjoy its protection in 
rights of property. In these matters it 
must be subject to civil authority, and both 
as a body and as individuals, should be 
law-keepers, and not law-breakers. But in 
matters of spiritual concern, in questions of 
faith and religious practice, the State and 
civil law have no rights of control over, or 
interference with the Church of Christ in 
any matter or manner whatever. 

It may also happen that in the exercise 
of its ecclesiastical functions, in acts of dis- 
cipline or exclusion, a Church, or even a 
Council, may be charged with decisions 
which are defamatory in their nature, calcu- 
lated to injure the reputation or the secular 
business of the individual, and he may seek 
redress at courts of civil law. Such results 
have at times occurred, and under stress of 
circumstances, are liable to occur. Civil 
courts usually observe this rule, when ap- 
pealed to in ecclesiastical matters, viz. : that 



36 



the established usages of any body of Chris- 
tians have a right to be followed, and if 
these have been observed, and not trans- 
cended, the courts will not interfere. But, 
if from passion, prejudice, or ignorance, 
these have been disregarded, and the prec- 
edents and customs of the Church and its 
denomination have been violated, the courts 
may interfere to give relief if the Church 
will not, but will interfere only so far as to 
require the Church to give the case a new 
trial, in which its, own rules and precedents 
shall be strictly observed. 

3. By some it has been held that, while 
each Church is independent in theory, its 
liberty is somewhat abridged by its rela- 
tions to other Churches, and because of 
that fellowship and comity which exists be- 
tween them. By such it is claimed that 
the relation of each Church to the great 
body of Churches is similar to the relation 
of each member of a single Church to the 
body of members w r hich constitute that 
Church, and as each member relinquishes 
something of his personal liberty on becom- 



37 

ing a member, and consents to be subject 
to the authority of the body, so the indi- 
vidual Church is conditioned. Or to take 
another figure: as each particular State, 
though in a sense sovereign, yet has its in- 
dependency limited by being a member 
of the federation of States, and submits in 
certain matters to be subject to the general 
government, while represented in it — so 
the Churches. 

Now this whole course of argument is 
fallacious and misleading, and the illustra- 
tions are unauthorized and contrary to the 
facts. There is no such relation subsisting 
between the various Churches, constituting 
a general fellowship, as exists between the 
individual members of a single Church. 
No hint or intimation of any such similarity 
is found in the New Testament, where the 
constitution and polity of the individual 
Church is taught. If this similarity of re- 
lation be insisted on, then we should have 
this general confederacy or fellowship of 
Churches claiming authority over the indi- 
vidual Church, receiving, disciplining and 



38 



excluding Churches, and othewise exercis- 
ing powers similar to those of the Church 
over its members. Admit so much, and 
we have prelacy or papacy in spirit and in 
fact at once. 

Nor is there any relation between the 
individual Churches that can be fitly repre- 
sented by the Union of States in a general 
government. If it were so, we should have 
a de facto Presbyterianism. This whole 
course of argument — or assumption, rather 
— carried out to its logical result, would 
not leave a vestige of Church independency. 
The only limitation of Church independ- 
ency, the only check upon the exercise of 
Christian liberty required by the Gospel is 
loyalty to Christ, as King in Zion, fidelity 
to His truth, and a constant exercise of that 
kindty courtesy which is innate in the Gos- 
pel and essential to the true Christian life, 
whether individual or organic, whether per- 
sonal, social, or official. This spirit of kind- 
ly courtesy dominant, will give all that fel- 
lowship which the Churches need or can 
demand. 



39 



4 It is sometimes said that Baptists are 
too independent, and that their liberty de- 
generates into license. Now, on calm re- 
flection, all this must be denied. They 
cannot, as Churches, be too independent, 
using that word in its true Christian sense. 
Nor can liberty become license. Ignorant 
and foolish men may be charged with many 
wrong acts. They may practice injustice 
and oppression in the name of liberty, 
and under pretense of independence. But 
liberty and independence are, at the very 
most, only the occasion, and are in no sense 
to be mado responsible for the evils which 
perverse and wrong-headed persons perpe- 
trate under the shelter of their name. 
Church independency has its peculiar lia- 
bility to misuse and abuse, but it cannot be 
shown that its difficulties are any more nu- 
merous or any more serious than those to 
which other forms of Church government 
are liable. Indeed, if this be the true, the di- 
vine plan, then is it the best plan, with the 
fewest objections, and the most advantages. 
The defects lie not in the plan, but in those 
who administer it. 



40 



II. The Individual Church the Only Tribu- 
nal. 

The individual Gospel Church is the only 
tribunal by which questions of religious 
faith and practice can be finally and au- 
thoritatively decided. 

This statement of truth is a necessary 
inference from the Baptist view of Church 
polity, as taught in the New Testament. 
Those who hold other theories of Church 
government would, of course, deny this 
proposition. But as our constant appeal 
must be to the Word of God, we should 
ask where, in the New Testament, is there 
to be found warrant for a line of Church 
Courts, of which the individual Church, or 
some official board in it, is the lowest, rising 
by graduation through a series, until the 
highest is reached in some Synod, Council, 
Convention, Conference or assembly, whose 
decisions are final judicial decrees. They 
are all the outgrowth of expediency, de- 
vised and constructed by human skill. 

But, in saying that the individual Church 
is the only human court of appeal in eccle- 



41 



siastical matters, it must be understood 
that its authority, even in matters spiritual, 
is limited within comparatively narrow 
bounds. It has no authority to decide 
questions for other Churches, nor for indi- 
viduals outside its own membership; but it 
may give advice when asked. It has no 
right or power to compel the assent or con- 
formity, even of its own members, nor to 
interfere with the personal freedom of faith 
or rights of conscience of any, nar to pun- 
ish dissent by the infliction of any civil or 
secular penalties. 

The Church has a right to receive to its 
fellowship whomsoever it may deem fit; and 
of that fitness it is to be sole judge. It has 
the righfc to exclude from its fellowship 
those judged unfit to remain longer in it; 
and of that unfitness it is to be sole judge. 
To settle and dismiss pastors, arrange wor- 
ship, and manage its own affairs, without the 
control or interference of any persons, or 
bodies of men, external to itself, whatsoever. 
And though it cannot compel conformity, 
nor punish dissent, it can separate itself, 



42 



by disfellowship, from those whose faith 
it judges unscriptural, or whose conduct it 
decides to be unchristian; and of all these 
questions the Church is to be sole judge for 
itself; and its decisions no human tribunal 
is competent to reverse or review. 

Moreover, a Church cannot transfer its 
authority nor its responsibility to some 
other body. It cannot construct a tribunal 
within itself, such as a board of deacons, or 
a committee of discipline, and commit to 
them the " power of the keysf to bind and 
to loose, in final action. Nor can it erect a 
tribunal external to itself, such as a Coun- 
cil, and to that transfer its authority. It 
may ask advice and receive counsel; but its 
own acts alone are authoritative in ecclesias- 
tical decisions. 

But a Church may err, and injustice may 
be suffered in consequence. This is con- 
ceded. It is the common incident of hu- 
man action. All earthly tribunals, at times, 
render erroneous judgments, even those 
which are beyond review or appeal. Blinded 
by ignorance, biassed by prejudice, heated 



43 

by passion, absolute equity is seldom at- 
tained. But the experience of generations 
goes to prove that of a hundred cases, how- 
ever grave and perplexing, investigated and 
judged by individual Churches, the results 
would approach as near to moral accuracy 
and personal satisfaction as if adjudicated 
by the more complicated and more learned 
Church Courts of other denominations; 
while they would attain less publicity, less 
scandalize the Christian name, and less em- 
bitter personal feeling. 

III. Baptist Councils, always and only advis- 
ory. 

Councils, of whatever kind and for what- 
ever purpose called, are always and every- 
where advisory only, and can never be au- 
thoritative. 

This proposition would follow as a neces- 
sary corollary from the preceding state- 
ments, and from the admitted polity of 
the New Testament, as understood by Bap- 
tists. And yet there are some who are 
constantly inclined to invest Councils with 



44 



more than advisory powers, either for the 
sake of holding in check the extreme ten- 
dencies of independency, or to dispose of 
vexations difficulties with summary justice. 
There is a constant disposition in human 
nature to compel others to do, or else to do 
for them, what we think they ought to do, 
without considering that even the doing 
right under compulsion or by proxy is of 
doubtful virtue, while all infractions of per- 
sonal freedom are positive evils. 

It is asserted that while a single Church 
can properly perform all Churchly acts, yet 
in important matters, such as the ordina- 
tion or deposition of ministers and other 
grave concerns, it is essential to have the 
aggregated wisdom of the various Churches, 
speaking through their delegates, and rep- 
resenting the denomination; and so a 
Council must be called. 

To all such specious statements, the fol- 
lowing answers may be given: 

1. Many things may be expedient which 
are not essential. This distinction must be 
kept in mind. 



45 



It is prudent and every way proper for a 
Church to seek the advice of others than 
their own members, on the important occa- 
sions of introducing into the ministry men 
whom they believe to be called of God to 
fill it, or in putting out of the ministry men 
whom they believe unfit to hold that sacred 
office. Both are most important and re- 
sponsible acts, and neither should be has- 
tily done. The counsel of ministers, espec- 
ially those whose long experience and well- 
known discretion can be relied on for dis- 
passionate and independent judgment, will 
be of great service in such cases. But still 
it must be kept in mind that it is advice 
and counsel only, and not authority, dicta- 
tion or judicial decision they are to give. 
The authority lies with the Church, and not 
with the Council. The final decision must 
emanate from the Church, and be by and 
in the name of the Church, to be lawful 
and of any force. This decision will be 
formed on and influenced by the advice of 
the Council, to such extent only as the 
Church may think proper. The Council is 



46 



the advisory body; the Church is the au- 
thoritative body. 

There are many other questions of great 
difficulty, and on which important results 
depend, in which it would be unwise to act 
without the careful judgment of others in 
some way obtained, either by personal ad- 
vice or in the more formal, action of a Coun- 
cil, particularly if the Church be small, or 
divided in its own counsels in the matter. 

2. But if, as some claim, a Council be 
necessary, and not simply convenient — if it 
be essential, and not merely expedient — then 
we must admit the existence of a body with 
ecclesiastical authority, external to the 
Church, and superior to it. But this con- 
tradicts the Baptist theory of the Church, 
as taught in the New Testament. Such a 
body would be superior to the Church, 
since on this supposition it could perform 
ecclesiastical acts which the Church could 
not perform. To admit this would wreck 
our polity, and throw us into the ranks of 
Prelatists, or Presbyterians, allowing 
Church courts apart from the Churches, 
and superior to them. 



47 

Moreover, on the above hypothesis, since 
Councils are called and thereby created by 
the Church, we should have to face this ab- 
surdity, viz. : That a Council created by the 
Church is superior in authority to the body 
which created it, since it can do what the 
Church cannot do ; and the body made can 
dictate to and demand submission from the 
body which made it. It claims that a Church 
which has not power to perform a certain 
service has, nevertheless, power to create a 
body which shall have authority superior 
to itself 3 and sufficient to perform the ser- 
vice which itself could not do — the thing 
formed would be superior to the former of 
it. All of which would be destructive if 
admitted, and the simple statement of which 
shows its absurdity. "Whence, then, would 
the Council derive its authority ? Not from 
the Church, for the Church, on this hy- 
pothesis, not having authority to perform 
the service, could have no such authority 
with which to invest the Council ; it could 
not transfer to others what it did not pos- 
sess. And as the Council has no inherent 



48 



authority, and has been invested with no 
divine authority, and cannot be endowed 
by secular power, therefore it has no 
authority. 

Therefore, the assertion not unfrequently 
made through public journals and other 
ways, that, as a Council is essential to put a 
man into the ministry, so one is necessary 
to put him out of it, is a fallacy from first 
to last — a double fallacy, indeed. No such 
necessity exists in either case, however man- 
ifest may be the prudence, or marked the 
expediency of such course in either case. 

3. A Council may — and Councils some- 
times do — when called to assist in the set- 
tlement of difficulties, at the very com- 
mencement, insist that the parties involved 
in the difficulties shall pledge themselves to 
abide by their decisions, whatever these 
may be. Having pledged such concurrence, 
the parties will feel themselves morally 
bound to submit without complaint to the 
" findings, " whether satisfactory or not. 

Such a ca§e comes the nearest to author- 
itative Council action of any which can 



49 

properly transpire. But this course is of 
very doubtful propriety, A Council, unless 
it is willing to take .the risk of having its 
advice rejected, might with propriety de- 
cline to act at all. And probably had bet- 
ter not act, rather than to make its advice 
compulsory, being enforced by pledges pre- 
viously exacted. As a matter of fact such 
pledges are seldom kept when made. As a 
question of morals, it is exceedingly doubt- 
ful whether it is proper for persons to bind 
themselves by pledges to a course of action, 
dependent on future contingencies which 
they cannot foresee, and to keep which 
might violate the mature convictions of con- 
science. It seems far better, when advice 
is asked, to give it, and leave the responsi- 
bility with those who have asked it. 

Certainly, those who ask advice of their 
brethren should feel themselves morally 
bound to accept and follow that advice, un- 
less there be very grave objections to such 
a course. Of this they must of necessity 
themselves be the judges ; and they, too, 
must bear the responsibility. 



50 

General Propositions. 

The principles on which, and the rules by 
which, according to common usage and 
general consent, Baptist Councils are con- 
stituted, and their action governed, may be 
stated in the following propositions: 

1. It is, and must be, accepted as a fun- 
damental and universal rule, that, within 
the sphere of Congregationalism and 

•Church dependency, all Councils are ad- 
visory only; they neither have nor can 
have any ecclesiastical authority. They can 
only consider such subjects as are submit- 
ted to them; and they bind individuals and 
Churches so far only as they may choose to 
submit to their judgment and advice. Their 
province is simply counsel — what the name 
implies; never and in no sense are they 
Church Courts for authoritative decrees, 
much less legislative bodies for the en- 
actment of laws. 

2. Councils have no original authority 
for action, and, indeed, no antecedent right 
of existence. Their existence depends on 



51 



those who call them into being, and their 
authority to act is derived from the same 
source. No company of persons, not a 
Church, has the right to convene, organize, 
and take action on ecclesiastical matters 
which have not been submitted to them. 

3. A Council consists of delegates or 
messengers, appointed by the Churches of 
which they are members, at the request of 
those calling it. A Committee of Reference 
is composed of individuals personally in- 
vited to advise, but without any Church 
action for their appointment. A Presby- 
tery, in the Baptist sense, is a company of 
ministers, personally invited to assist in or- 
dination, or to advise in any religious mat- 
ter. 

4. Councils may be convened by Churches 
or individuals — more commonly by Churches 
— to consult and give advice in matters 
submitted to them when convened. Indi- 
viduals in difficulty with then- Church, or 
persons excluded from it, may call a Coun- 
cil, if the Church will not, under circum- 
stances hereafter explained. 



52 

5. But individuals in difficulty among 
themselves in the same Church could not, 
with propriety, call a Council to settle their 
difficulties. Such would be a personal 
matter, which the Church would be under 
obligation to see adjusted. If a Council 
were needed, the Church should call it, on 
the ground that the body could not effect 
a settlement without such assistance. 

6. The usual and proper manner of con- 
vening a Council is by sending letters to 
such Churches as may be selected, a major- 
ity of which should be those located in the 
vicinity, asking them to appoint their pas- 
tor and one or two — usually two — brethren 
as messengers, to sit in Council with them. 
These letters are called letters missive, and 
constitute the onlv authority for the assem- 
bling of the body, and the charter under 
which it is to act when assembled. 

7. The letters missive should be uniform, 
their statements identical, distinctively an- 
nouncing when and where the body is to 
convene, and what Churches and individuals 
are invited to attend. 



53 



8. The letters missive should also distinct- 
ly state what are the matters on which they 
are expected to give advice. It is an ad- 
mitted rule, sanctioned by general usage, 
that a Council cannot be convened under a 
roving commission to act on any subject 
that may chance to arise, or which any one 
may choose to bring up; but must confine 
its action strictly to such matters as are 
specified in the letters by which it is con- 
vened. 

9. The delegates, or messengers, which 
compose the Council, are in no proper sense 
representatives of the Churches which ap- 
point them. They cannot, therefore, act 
for their Churches, nor bind them by any 
action they may take in the Council. A 
Baptist Church cannot be represented in 
another body ; nor can it transfer to any 
persons within, or external to itself, author- 
ity to act for it. It can send messages by 
its messengers, but cannot delegate power 
to act. 

10. A Council, when organized, is an in- 
dependent body within its own sphere of 



54 



action. It cannot be dictated to, controlled, 
or bound by the Churches from which its 
members come ; nor can it dictate to or 
bind those Churches by its decisions. Its 
acts are the result of the judgment and 
opinions of a majority of its members, and 
have the weight and force which such opin- 
ions carry — simply that, and nothing more. 

11. It is not an uncommon thing for those 
calling a Council to invite, in addition to 
Church messengers, certain individuals, 
whose presence and counsels may, for rea- 
sons, be desirable. To this custom, although 
it constitutes a somewhat mixed commis- 
sion, there seems to be no reasonable ob- 
jection. 

12. Parties cannot properly convoke a 
Council to investigate, or pass a judgment 
on the case of persons with whom they hold 
no ecclesiastical connection — such as a mem- 
ber or pastor of another Church than that 
with which those convoking the Council are 
connected. But one Church may call and 
ask a Council to advise them as to their 
duty in respect to some other Church with 
which they are in fellowship. 



55 



13. The messengers, when convened, at 
the hour designated, organize by the elec- 
tion of some member as chairman and some 
other one as clerk. These elections are 
usually on nomination ; and any one may 
call the meeting to order and ask for a 
nomination. After this the credentials of 
messengers are called for, and the clerk 
makes an accurate list of members. Then 
the object for which the Council was called 
is stated — usually by reading a copy of the 
letter missive. By this the body understands 
what it is desired to do. Further explana- 
tions, the j)resentation f evidence, and a 
discussion of the subj ect follow, concluding 
with such action as the body may agree to 
take. The usual parliamentary rules gov- 
ern in debate and order, unless the Council 
adopts something different at the com- 
mencement. 

14. A Council is composed of all the per- 
sons present in response to the invitations 
sent out, and can neither increase nor di- 
minish the number of its members. Its 
composition is fixed by those who call it, 



56 



and cannot be changed by its own action, 
nor by the authority of any other body. It 
cannot, therefore, admit other persons to 
membership, nor exclude any who are mem- 
bers by appointment. 

15. But, as an exception to this rule, all 
deliberative bodies possess the primal and 
inherent right to protect themselves against 
insult, disgrace or violence, and against 
such interruptions as would prevent the 
object of their deliberations. Such con- 
duct, therefore, on the part of any member, 
during the proceedings, would make him 
liable to censure or expulsion. 

16. If, however, any member of a Coun- 
cil be dissatisfied with the presence of any 
other member, or with the proceedings of 
the body, he can refuse to act and withdraw 
from them. He has no other remedy. 

17. Usage has not decided that any spe- 
cified number of the messengers appointed 
shall constitute a quorum, essential for do- 
ing business. Any considerable number, or 
even a small number present, usually pro- 
ceed to action, especially if the case be one 



57 



involving no special difficulty. If, however, 
the matter be important and difficult, action 
should not be taken without a full attend- 
ance of messengers. In all important cases, 
certainly, it would be a salutary rule, if 
adopted, that no action should be had, un- 
less a majority of those actually called to 
constitute the Council were present. Or, 
if the Council should vote by Churches, un- 
less a majority of the Churches invited were 
represented by messengers ; though voting 
by Churches is seldom resorted to in Coun- 
cils. But so diverse are the opinions of 
those who act on Councils, as well as those 
who convene and desire them to act, that 
no rule fitted to all occasions has been, or 
probably can be adopted. 

18. A Council may adjourn from time to 
time, if necessary to complete the purpose 
for which it was convened. But it cannot 
perpetuate a continued existence as a stand- 
ing court of appeal. When its object is 
accomplished, it expires by limitation, but 
a formal vote to dissolve, or to adjourn sine 
die, is usually passed. 



58 



19. When a Council adjourns and subse- 
quently meets, it must retain the same 
composition as at its first session. It can- 
not be added to nor diminished as to its 
members, except that by mutual agreement 
of the Council, and all concerned in it as 
parties, additional members may be invited 
to sit in the adjourned meeting. 

20. Before adjournment, the minutes of 
the meeting are read, corrected and ap- 
proved, and a certified copy is ordered to 
be given to the parties by whom it was 
called, as containing the results of the de- 
liberations, and the Council's answer to the 
request for advice. 

21. When once dissolved, or finally ad- 
journed, the body ceases to exist, and can- 
not reconvene at its own option, or by its 
own authority. If convened again, it must 
be by authority and process similar to that 
which first brought it into being. It would 
be, in fact, a new Council, though composed 
of the same individuals. 

22. It is not proper for one Council to sit 
in judgment on or review the action of a 



59 



previous Council. But a matter not satis- 
factorily adjusted by one, may be referred 
to a second. 

23. When a second is called to consider 
some matter already submitted to a pre- 
vious Council, the second should, so far 
as practicable, embrace all the members of 
the previous, with, however, such ad- 
ditions as will be likely to counterbal- 
ance any local or personal prejudices, or 
any want of information or experience, 
which may possibly have prevented satis- 
factory results in the former case. 

24. In the calling of a Council, no " pack- 
ing " process should ever be adopted, seeking 
to compose it of such persons only as would 
be likely to favor the object of those who 
called it. Such a course may be a device 
of worldly policy, but is unworthy of Chris- 
tian men, w T ho in all honesty should act 
on higher principles, and seek, not sim- 
ply an endorsement of a predetermined po- 
sition or course of action, but equity and 
justice, truth and right. For this, and not 
for the furtherance of personal or of party 



60 



plans, should they ask counsel of their 
brethren. 

25. A Council may be called by a single 
Church, or by several Churches acting in 
concert, or by a single individual, or by 
several persons acting in concert. The let- 
ters missive should distinctly state by whom 
the call is issued, as well as the object for 
which it is issued. 

26. Councils called to adjust and settle 
difficulties are usually designated as either 
mutual or ' ex parte Councils. A mutual 
Council is one to which the different par- 
ties to the difficulty unite in the call and 
reference. An ex parte Council is called by 
one party to the difficulty. 

27. In the calling of a mutual Council, 
each party uniting in the call (whether an 
individual, several persons, or a Church) 
has the selection of one-half the members 
of the Council; otherwise there might seem 
a want of fairness in the composition of the 
body. While the parties may confer to- 
gether as to the Churches or individuals to 
be invited, yet neither has the right to ob- 



61 



ject to those selected by the other, provid- 
ing they be all reputable members, in good 
and regular standing in Baptist Churches. 

28. An ex parte Council should not be 
called until all proper efforts have been 
made for, and have failed to secure a mutual 
Council. The reason is obvious. General 
harmony and agreement are desirable, and 
are more likely to be secured in a mutual 
Council, where all parties can be heard. 

29. Parties not uniting in calling a Coun- 
cil, can have no rights or standing in the 
body when convened; but, as a matter of 
courtesy, or for the sake of obtaining all 
possible information, persons interested in, 
or having knowledge of the matter, may be 
heard by consent of the body and those 
who convened it. 

30. Parties calling a Council cannot be 
members of it, and have no vote or rights 
of action with it, except to place before the 
body all information in their possession, 
through persons chosen by them for the 
purpose. Otherwise they would sit as 
judges of their own case. 



62 



31. An ex parte Council, when convened, 
cannot by its own action transform itself 
into a mutual Council. This change can be 
effected only by the consent and agreement 
of the different parties involved in the diffi- 
culty. 1 

32. When a mutual Council is to be called 
to adjust difficulties between a Church and 
some of its members, the letters convening 
it should be sent out by and in the name 
of the Church, and not of the individuals. 
But the fact of its being by mutual agree- 
ment of the parties should be stated in the 
letters. 

33. A Council cannot review and pass 

1 And yet Dr. Dexter teaches that it is, or 
should be the usage of Congregationalism, that 
the first thing for an ex parte Council to do after 
organization is to offer itself to the party which 
had declined to unite in the call as a mutual 
^council, and invite their concurrence. The ab- 
surdity of such a course of action would seem ap- 
parent. A Council has no right to assume any 
position, or undertake any duty for which it was 
not convened, except by the consent of those who 
called it.— Dexter's Cong., p. 371., Ans. to Ques. 7. 



63 



judgment on the action of any other Church 
than that which has called and submitted 
matters to it; nor can a Council properly be 
called for such a purpose. No body of men 
holds the right to try and pass judgment on 
an independent Church, or judicially to re- 
view its acts of internal order and discipline. 
Such a body would thereby become judicial 
— a Church court. 

34 But either Churches or individuals 
may call a Council to advise them what is 
their duty in relation to a Church deemed 
heretical in doctrine or irregular in prac- 
tice; or for other reasons thought import- 
ant. Matters pertaining to that other 
Church would therefore necessarily come 
under consideration, so far as the facts were 
concerned regarding which advice had been 
asked, and so far as might be necessary to 
enable the Council to advise intelligently 
and discreetly in the case. 

35. Members, if aggrieved by the atti- 
tude of their own Church, believed by them 
to be heretical in doctrine or disorderly in 
practice, and all efforts at adjustment hav- 



64 

ing been tried without success, and all 
efforts to secure a mutual Council haying 
failed, should, before calling an ex parte 
Council, lay the case before some neighbor- 
ing Church or Churches, as a matter in 
which such Church or Churches have an 
equal interest with themselves; and re- 
quest them to call a Council for advice to 
the aggrieved members, or to themselves, 
or both. Should such Churches decline, as 
not deeming the occasion sufficient, or not 
wishing to seem inimical to that Church, 
or being unwilling to become involved in 
controversy, then the individuals may pro- 
ceed to call one; not to sit in judgment on 
the Church, but to advise those calling it. 
The call should state what efforts had previ- 
ously been made. 

36. Members excluded from a Church, as 
they believe, unjustly, and wishing to ob- 
tain justice by pursuing the case, would 
find the following the prudent, wise and 
orderly course. First. — To seek a rehear- 
ing and a new decision on the case by the 
excluding Church. Second. — This failing, 



65 



to seek a mutual Council to whose judgment 
the matter may be referred. Third. — This 
failing, to seek admission to another Church, 
with the request that such other Church 
should call a Council to advise them as to 
the propriety of receiving such excluded 
member. Fourth. — All these failing, such 
excluded member would be justified, should 
he so desire, to call an ex parte Council to 
advise him what should further be done in 
the case. 

37. When a member excluded, as he be- 
lieves, unjustly, having failed in his at- 
tempts at readjustment with the Church, 
and being unable to secure a mutual Coun- 
cil, resolves to call one ex-parte, he should 
request the Church which excluded him to 
appoint some one or more to appear before 
the Council, and present their view of the 
case to the body. But he could not be ex- 
pected to ask that Church to send delegates 
to sit as members of the Council; indeed, 
it would seem to be contrary to propriety 
and a natural sense of justice, for those who 
had already judged the case, and decided 



66 



it, unfairly, as he believed, to sit again on 
its decision. They could not be regarded 
as unbiased or impartial judges, since they 
had already rendered their judgment, 
which judgment they had refused to re- 
verse, and which they had refused to sub- 
mit to a mutual Council. 

38. If, when invitations to unite in a Coun- 
cil are received, those receiving them do not 
approve the object of the call, and decline to 
act, they should at once notify the party call- 
ing it to that effect, giving their reasons for 
non-concurrence. These facts should be laid 
before the body when convened. But it is 
better to respond if the call be issued from 
any respectable source — and all sources 
should be presumed respectable unless 
known to be otherwise — and by one's pres- 
ence and counsel prevent unfortunate ac- 
tion, rather than permit it by absence. 

39. It is a course of questionable pro- 
priety for a Council to require the parties 
to a difficulty to bind themselves at the be- 
ginning to abide by whatever decision the 
body may reach. For it is hardly consist- 



67 



ent with the freedom of conscience to 
pledge agreement beforehand to an un- 
known course of action, contingent on fu- 
ture or unforeseen events. And as a matter 
of fact, such pledges, when made, are sel- 
dom kept. 

40. Councils for the adjustment of ques- 
tions involving Church action should not 
be called, unless the need seems impera- 
tive. Churches should administer their 
own affairs, exercising their own preroga- 
tives and discharging their own responsi- 
bilities without external aid, so far as possi- 
ble. And against all tendency to relieve 
them of their appropriate duties, to intrude 
upon the sphere of their just authority, or 
to undermine their absolute independence 
— against all this Councils should constant- 
ly and sacredly guard. 



68 



Councils for Okdfnation. 

One of the ordinary and most common 
occasions for the calling of Councils is that 
of the ordination of ministers. So import- 
ant is the act of putting a man — usually, 
of course, a young and inexperienced man 
— into the sacred and responsible position 
of an accredited religious teacher and pas- 
tor of a Church, that it has grown into a 
custom, as wise as it is expedient, to take 
counsel of those whose experience and 
knowledge make them safe advisors in such 
matters. 

Among Baptist Churches in the South, 
Councils are not held in high esteem, and 
seldom used. Instead, a number of minis- 
ters are invited as a "Presbytery," to give 
advice and act in public services. So far as 
the efficacy of the action is concerned, the 
one is as valid as the other. 

In considering the relation of Councils 
to ordination, two questions of moment 
arise. 



69 



1. In what consists the substance of or- 
dination ? 

2. Wherein resides the right of ordina- 
tion? 

This is not the place for a full discussion 
of these questions. 1 Here they can be only 
briefly considered, and in so far as they 
relate to Councils simply. 

1. In what consists the substance of or- 
dination ? 

Ordination, in the New Testament sense, 
means, not a ceremonial induction into the 
ministerial office, but an election, appoint- 
ment, or choice to that office by the stretch- 
ing out of the hand, in voting (which the 
word used means), by which act the pastors 
and teachers of the Churches were chosen. 
In this view, very generally, the best 
scholars of all Christian denominations are 
agreed. 

Dr. Dexter says, on the New Testament 
meaning of the terms used for ordination, 
" There being no hint in either case of any- 

4 See Star Book on Ordination. 



70 

thing of a character like what is commonly 
called ordination in our time. " L 

Dean Alford says: "The word will not 
bear Jerome's and Chrysostom's sense of 
laying on of hands, adopted by Roman 
Catholic expositors. Nor is there any rea- 
son for departing from the usual meaning 
of electing by show of hands." 2 

Dr. Hackett renders the passage in Titus 
1 :5 : " Now, having appointed for them 
elders in every Church." And explains it 
thus: " having appointed for them, by the 
outstretched hand." 

Dean Alford renders it, "And mightest 
appoint, city by city, elders. " 

Conybeare render s it, " Mightest appoint 
presbyters in every city. " 

Bloomfield says on Acts 14:23: "There 
is indeed no point on which the most 
learned have been so much agreed as this, 
that Cheirotonasantes here simply denotes 
having selected, constituted, appointed." 

1 Congregationalism, p. 138. 

2 On Acts 14:23— Tit. 1:5. 



71 

Coleman says: "This conclusion is sus- 
tained by the most approved authorities. 
According to Suicer, the primary and ap- 
propriate signification of the term is to de- 
note an election made by the uplifting of 
the hand ; and particularly denotes the 
election of a bishop by vote." He cites 
Grotius, De "Wett, Beza, Bohmer, Rothe 
and others to the same effect. 1 

Many other similar testimonies might be 
adduced, to show that ordination, in the 
New Testament sense, was an election or 
appointment to office, and had no reference 
to any ritual or ceremonial service in the 
setting of men apart to the duties of that 
office. Indeed, no instance cau be found 
in the New Testament where any man was 
inducted into the office of the gospel minis- 
try by any public or formal ceremony what- 
ever. The seven deacons were publicly set 
apart to their work by prayer and the lay- 
ing on of hands. Paul and Barnabas were 
sent to the heathen with a similar service 

1 Prim. Christianity, p. 64. 



72 



and. benediction; but they had been in the 
ministry many years already. On various 
other occasions were special services had, 
particularly those of prayer, with the im- 
position of hands. But none of these sig- 
nalized the entrance of men upon the offi- 
cial duties of the ministry of the Word. 
If ceremonial ordination was practiced on 
such occasions, we have no intimation of it 
in the apostolic history of the primitive 
Church. 

Ceremonial ordination, therefore, by the 
aid of a Council, is an act of order and 
expediency only, and in no sense an act of 
authority or necessity. Nor is it of divine 
appointment. It is an impressive service, 
expressing approval and sympathy for the 
candidate and people. Ordination confers 
no rights, powers, qualifications or authority 
on the candidate. A man's right and 
commission to preach the gospel is from 
God alone, through the endowment and 
witness of the Spirit, and not from any hu- 
man source whatever. His right and com- 
mission to preach the gospel to a particular 



73 



Church, and to be their pastor and leader, 
is derived from that particular Church, 
which voluntarily elects him to that posi- 
tion. All that a Council can do is to ex- 
press approval or disapproval of the matter. 
Public ordination services express the ap- 
proval of those taking part in them — de- 
clare their fraternal sympathy for both pas- 
tor and people, and commend them to the 
confidence of the community and to the 
blessing of God. 

2. "Wherein resides the right of ordina- 
tion? 

Does that right inhere in the Church, or 
in the Council? By ordination here is, of 
course, meant the public service — the cere- 
mony — by which a man is set apart for, or 
inducted into, the work of the ministry. 
The answer is and must be that the right of 
ordination is in the Church, and not in a 
Council or elsewhere. For if we suppose 
this right to reside in a Council, then we 
must admit that a Church is not free and 
independent in matters pertaining to its 
own internal life, since it could not, on this 



74 



supposition, enjoy the ministry of the man 
of its choice, without the consent of a Coun- 
cil. The disapproval of the Council would 
nullify and make void the action of the 
Church, and the Church would be held in 
subjection to the will of the Council, and 
must either remain without a pastor, or ac- 
cept one against their wishes, which the 
Council might commend. 1 

Such a conclusion is the logical and nec- 
essary result to which the theory leads. 
But it contradicts all the traditions of Bap- 
tist history, and the understood teachings 
of the New Testament. Churches do pos- 
sess the right to choose and enjoy the min- 
istry of such teachers as they may select, 
and to induct them into office, placing 
them in the full exercise of their ministerial 
functions, by any public ceremonies they 
may choose, or without any. And a minis- 
ter so chosen and inducted into office is to 
all intents and purposes, de facto and de 
jure, a minister of the gospel to that peo- 
ple. To that people, but to no other 

1 See pp. 45-48. 



75 



Church, unless some other Church should 
make him their choice in like manner. 
Nor is any man a minister to any Church, 
save to such as freely choose him, though 
fifty Councils may have sanctioned his min- 
istry. 

The fathers and defenders of Church 
freedom have maintained this view of the 
nature of ordination. 

Cotton Mather said: "Our fathers 
reckoned ordination not to be essential unto 
the vocation cf a minister, any more than 
coronation to the being of a king; but that 
it is only a consequent and convenient ad- 
junct of his vocation, and a solemn ac- 
knowledgment of it, with a useful and 
proper benediction of him in it." 1 

Backus, in his History of the New England 
Churches, says : "And ordination of minis- 
ters is no more than swearing them to be 
faithful in that office, their being furnished 
with grace and gifts for it is the most es- 
sential thing in the affair." 2 

1 Magnolia, vol. 3, pp. 242-3. 

2 Oh. Hist., p. Ill, Phil. Ed., 1853. 



76 



Thomas Hooker says: " It is plain that or- 
dination presupposes an officer constituted, 
does not constitute; therefore it is not an 
act of power, but of order." 1 

The Cambridge Platform says: "Ordina- 
tion we account nothing else but the sol- 
emnly putting a man into his place and of- 
fice in the Church, whereunto he had right 
before, by election, being like the installing 
of a magistrate in the commonwealth. " 2 

Dr. Crowell says: "It is evident that 
the right to consecrate is involved in the 
right to elect; and this right, as we have 
seen, the Lord Jesus Christ has invested in 
each Church." "The choice or election of 
a man to the ministry is a greater act than 
that of consecration or induction into office. 
Consequently, the Church, which is compe- 
tent to do the greater, must possess in it- 
self all inherent power essential to the 
valid performance of the less." 3 

1 Right and Power of Ordination. 

2 Ch. 9, Sees. 2-4. 

3 Church Mem. Manual, pp. 106-7, Ed. '52. 



77 

Dr. Dexter says: "If a Church may elect 
its pastor, it may ordain him, which is but 
the carrying out that election to its full 
completion and result." * 

Dr. William B. Johnson, one of the most 
honored names among American Baptists, 
says: "There is no privileged order of 
men whose action is required to give valid- 
ity to appointments, or ordinations to min- 
isterial officers, because the Churches are 
clothed with appointing or ordaining 
power." "The sole power of ordaining to 
the pastorate or bishopric is lodged with 
the Churches." 2 

This is the true Baptist theory, and we 
believe the true Scripture teaching, what- 
ever may be claimed by the advocates of 
hierarchical ordination, and those who, 
without due reflection, insensibly incline to 
their views. 

Beyond question, great care should be 
used in the admission of candidates to the 

1 Cong., p. 141. 

2 The Gospel Developed, pp. 133, 144. 



78 



ministry, lest unworthy men — or at least 
men entirely unfit — should be too readily 
welcomed to that sacred office. And more 
care is needed than is now exercised, on the 
part both of Churches and Councils, in this 
regard. The Churches too often remit to 
the Council the responsibility which it is 
their own duty to exercise. As a matter of 
fact, the most unworthy men in the sacred 
office, and those who most afflict our 
Churches and prove a scandal to religion, 
are those who have easily passed their ex- 
aminations and received the approval and 
commendation of Councils. 

Though Councils have no power to put 
men into the ministry, and no power to 
keep them out, yet if, when called for ad- 
vice, they would examine carefully, and 
courageously refuse to commend or favor 
the ordination of those believed by them 
to be unfit, it would soon act with a moral 
force as salutary as though they were an 
authoritative court clothed with plenary 
power to invest and to depose, and that, too, 
without any of the disadvantages of such a 
court. 



79 



The Action of Okdaining Councils. 
The meeting of those invited to compose 
the Council ; at the place and time men- 
tioned, is followed by a formal organization, 
as in other cases, 1 prayer for divine guid- 
ance following the election of moderator 
and clerk, by some brother, on whom the 
moderator may call. The organization is 
completed by the clerk's making a roll of the 
messengers, as the moderator calls the list 
of Churches and individuals invited. Or, 
as is frequently done, by requesting all per- 
sons appointed to hand in their names to 
the clerk, with the names of the Churches 
from which they come. Usually the sim- 
ple statement of individuals that. they are 
present by invitation or appointment, is 
considered a sufficient voucher, without 
presenting any certificate of such appoint- 
ment from the Church. 

This being done, the business proceeds: 

1. By reading a copy of the letters missive, 

and by a statement of the moderator, it is 

1 See General Propositions, 12 and 16. 



80 



known that the Church has asked these 
brethren to meet in Council to advise them 
as to the propriety of publicly setting the 
candidate apart to the work of the minis- 
try, and if they approve and commend this 
course, to arrange and conduct such public 
services as they may deem appropriate to 
the occasion. 

2. They call for the reading of so much 
of the records of the Church as pertains to 
their own action in the case; their oppor- 
tunities for judging of his call to and fitness 
for the ministry, the favor in which he has 
been received in his ministry among them, 
his call to the pastorate, and, if there be any 
ground for doubt on that question, their 
ability to give him a comfortable pecuniary 
support. 

3. These preliminary statements being 
satisfactory, the Council proceeds to hear 
from the candidate himself such statements 
as may enable them to judge whether they 
can recommend his ordination. 

The statement of the candidate and his 
examination by the Council have special 
reference to three distinct topics: 



81 



a. As to his Christian experience. 

b. As to his call to the ministry. 

c. As to his views of Christian doctrine. 

On each of these topics he makes, in or- 
der, his statement, either extemporaneously 
or by reading one previously written, as he 
may prefer. He may make his statement 
complete on all these points and then be 
questioned on them all, or questions may 
be asked at the conclusion of each distinct 
topic, as the Council may direct or he pre- 
fer. 

It would not only be proper, but desir- 
able, to extend the examination beyond the 
range of these specific subjects. There are 
many questions of practical moment relat- 
ing to discipline, Church difficulties, con- 
troversies of a theological or ecclesiastical 
nature, of which a candidate should have 
some knowledge, and respecting which he 
should have some opinions. 

4. A candidate may not have become 
thoroughly familiar with all the details of 
scholastic theology, but no man should be 
encouraged to enter upon the work of the 



82 

Christian ministry and assume the over- 
sight of the flock of God, until he be 
grounded and settled in the fundamental 
truths of the Christian system. The work 
is too important and responsible to take 
any risk in that respect. 

5. It is neither wise nor proper for mem- 
bers of the Council themselves to fall into 
controversy in the endeavor to explain or 
defend variant opinions held among them- 
selves, in which some agree with and some 
differ from the candidate. Nor yet is it the 
occasion for instructing the candidate in 
matters of which he may appear to be ig- 
norant. The object of the Council is to as- 
certain what the candidate does know and 
believe, and then advise accordingly as to 
his ordination. 

6. On some minor points the mind of a 
candidate may not be entirely settled, but 
if he entertain fixed opinions contrary to 
the standards of his denomination, either in 
respect to doctrine or practice, on matters 
deemed by the Council important, they 
should not approve his ordination, nor as- 



83 

sist in it. For even though, on the assump- 
tion that he be right and they wrong, his 
induction into the ministry would intro- 
duce an inharmonious element into the 
Church and denomination, and almost cer- 
tainly lead to dissension and discord. Nor 
would a refusal to ordain be any restriction 
on liberty of thought or freedom of faith. 
A denomination, to be strong and effective, 
must be harmonious, and harmony among 
its ministers is of the first importance. 

7. The Church, before calling the Coun- 
cil, should take all proper care to ascertain 
the fitness of the candidate for the import- 
ant position he is about to assume, as their 
pastor and religious teacher. It is not 
simply the question as to whether he can 
interest an audience by a discourse, but 
also whether he gives evidence of having 
been called of God to the work ; whether 
he is fitted to instruct and build up the 
Church ; his ability to conduct the social 
services with interest; his adaptation to pas- 
toral work, and his prudence and ability to 
become a wise and safe guide and leader of 



84 



the people. And not less than these, as to 
what has been his general character and 
reputation, and his walk and deportm'ent 
hitherto. On these matters the Church is 
under obligation to be informed, and into 
these should the Council inquire. 

8. The Council, having accepted the po- 
sition and responsibility of advisers to the 
Church, should be faithful to their convic- 
tions, and advise according to their best 
judgment, whatever may be the wishes of 
the candidate, or the desire of the Church 
in the matter. 

9. When the examination is concluded, 
the candidate retires, and the Council de- 
liberates by itself, and decides whether it be 
satisfied to proceed to ordination. If sat- 
isfied, they notify the Church or its commit- 
tee to that effect. And as the Church has 
referred the matter of public service to 
them, they make arrangements for the same. 

10. Cases may occur where the examina- 
tion of the candidate is so far unsatisfactory 
that the Council — or a considerable part of 
them — is unwilling to advise ordination at 



85 



the present ; and at the same time the case 
may have so many favorable features as to 
make them hesitate absolutely to discard 
the candidate. It is not wise to proceed to 
ordination with a minority representing any 
considerable amount of experience and pru- 
dence opposed to it. The better way is for 
the Council to adjourn three or six months 
— or more — by this means giving the can- 
didate an opportunity to reconsider the 
matters deemed unsatisfactory, and thus, if 
possible, at a later day, secure the concur- 
rent approval of the body. 

11. "While no given amount of scholastic 
training, either literary or theological, can 
be exacted, as a necessary condition of or- 
dination, yet the largest amount practicable 
under the circumstances should be made 
available to the student for the ministry. 
And it may happen that where a candidate 
shows great immaturity of mind, want of 
mental training and discipline, inexperience, 
with crude notions of Christian truth, it 
may be the duty of the Council, in kindness 
to him, even to dissolve without action, and 



86 



recommend that lie avail himself of further 
opportunities for study and instruction, 
preparatory to the work. For, though they 
may believe him called to the ministry, 
they may not consider him called to an im- 
mediate entrance upon its duties. 

12. The usual public services at ordina- 
tions are the following: 

a. Introductory services: Singing, read- 
ing the Scriptures and prayer. 

b. The sermon; usually by some one pre- 
viously selected for the service. 

c. The ordaining prayer, during which 
the candidate kneels, and near the close of 
which, the one who prays, with one or two 
others, place their hands on his head. 

d. The hand of fellowship, by which he 
is welcomed to the fellowship of the min- 
istry. 

e. Charge to the candidate, in which cer- 
tain matters of duty and deportment are im- 
pressed upon him. 

f. Charge to the Church, designed to im- 
press the members with a suitable sense of 
their responsibilities in the case, and their 
duty to the pastor. 



87 



g. Singing may follow, and the benedic- 
tion, usually pronounced by the candidate, 
closes the services. 

But any other order may be adopted at 
the option of the Church and Council. It 
is probable that equal interest and advan- 
tage would accrue if the sermon were en- 
tirely omitted, and the several addresses 
occupied the time. Usually such services 
are too protracted. 

13. It is proper for a certified copy of the 
proceedings of the Council, embracing the 
order of public exercises, to be given the can- 
didate as the certificate of his ordination. 



88 



Councils for Recognizing Churches. 

Another of the ordinary occasions for the 
action of Councils is that of the recognition 
of Churches newly constituted. 

Whenever there may be living near each 
other a number of Christian disciples, who 
entertain similar views of doctrine, duty and 
Church order, it is their privilege to organ- 
ize themselves into a Church for Christian 
work and worship, for their personal ad- 
vancement in grace and Christian knowl- 
edge, and for the observance of Gospel or- 
dinances. This they do by entering into 
covenant, one with another, for the purpose 
contemplated; the adoption of such order, 
and the election of such officers as they may 
judge needful, the Scriptural officers being 
pastor and deacons. 

Such a company of believers, if they be 
members of Churches elsewhere located, 
would procure letters of dismission for the 
purpose of uniting in the constitution of a 
new Church. If not members elsewhere, 
but baptized believers, they would unite in 



89 



covenant with others on experience, having 
no letters. If unbaptized believers, they 
would seek baptism into the fellowship of 
some Church, and receive letters for this 
purpose, or else wait till the new Church 
should be constituted, when they could be 
baptized into its fellowship. 

Such a company of believers, so uniting 
in voluntary covenant and mutual agree- 
ment, are in fact a Church, possessing all 
the rights, privileges and authority of a 
Church of Christ, without the permission, 
sanction, or authority of any man or body 
of men whatever, aside from their own 
number. And no person or persons have a 
right to interfere with or hinder them in 
the exercise of these rights and privileges. 

But since Churches wish to be in fellow- 
ship with other Churches of similar faith 
and order, and to exercise and interchange 
the courtesies of Christian fraternity to- 
wards each other, it is customary for those 
newly formed to invite a Council to consider 
the conditions under which they were organ- 
ized, examine their statement of doctrine 



90 

and polity, and give approval — if they can 
approve — of their organization as a reg- 
ular and orderly Church. Thus, though a 
Council cannot give them the fellowship of 
other and older Churches, they can intro- 
duce them to their favorable notice with a 
kindly commendation. 

Councils for recognition involve two 
somewhat different conditions on the part 
of those calling them. 



I. Churches to be Organized. 

A Council may be called by those pro- 
posing to form a Church, but before they 
have formed it, to consider the case and ad- 
vise whether, in their judgment, it would 
be wise and expedient to constitute a 
Church, as proposed. 

In that case, the Council would hear a 
statement of the case, with the reasons 
which have moved them to this action. In 
order to advise intelligently, they should be 
informed on the following points: 

1. Has this movement originated in any 



91 



quarrel, dissension, or discontent on the 
part of these members with the Church or 
Churches from which they come. Very 
few Churches born of strife ever prosper. 

2. Is there need of a Church where they 
propose to locate ? Cannot the community 
generally and these particular members 
be reasonably well accommodated with 
existing Churches ? 

3. Could they not exert an equally salu- 
tary influence on the community and ac- 
complish an equal amount of good while re- 
taining their present Church relations, with- 
out assuming the burdensome responsibili- 
ties of another Church organization ? The 
multiplication of feeble Churches is usually 
an evil. 

4. "What is the prospect of growth in the 
community, as promising an increase of 
moral and material strength? The multi- 
plication of feeble churches, without a rea- 
sonable prospect of speedy growth, is an 
evil, unless justified by peculiar and urgent 
considerations. 

5. Have they ability to meet the pecuni- 



92 



ary liabilities of the undertaking; the com- 
fortable support of a pastor , and other nec- 
essary expenses, including a place of wor- 
ship? If they expect help from external 
sources, have they anything definite or 
positive on which to rely? Such questions 
should be considered in a plain, practical, 
business-like way. Too much assumption 
becomes presumption, and wrecks many a 
well-meant scheme. Presumption is some- 
times mistaken for faith. 

6. Are the members united and in har- 
mony among themselves as to the move- 
ment, and their plans; and do the Churches 
from which they come generally favor the 
undertaking? Their own union would be 
essential; the approval of their Churches 
would be desirable. 

7. What favor do they find in the com- 
munity ? Do they have the sympathy and 
support of the people ? This is an element, 
if not conclusive, yet not to be overlooked. 

8. Is the movement a project of one, or a 
few leaders, who desire to have pre-emi- 
nence, or is it a spontaneous impulse of the 
company of those identified with it? 



93 



There may, doubtless, be other consider- 
ations than these worthy of attention. The 
occasion is important, and the inquiry should 
be thorough. 

Should the Council advise against the or- 
ganization, still they would have the right 
to organize and become an independent 
Church. But such a course against such 
advice would be unwise, and almost sure to 
lose for them the sympathy, confidence and 
moral support of their brethren of other 
Churches. They had better wait till they 
can have approval. 

But should the Council be satisfied on 
the matters already mentioned, they would 
wish to inquire further : 

1. As to the creed basis on which they 
propose to organize. This would include 
their views of doctrines, ordinances and 
Church order. It is presumed they will 
have agreed on and accepted some articles 
of faith setting these matters forth ; and 
that these articles of faith wr>uld be in har- 
mony with the standards and usages of the 
denomination. Their organization could 



94 



not be recommended on any other ground. 
Do they propose to be strictly and regularly 
a Baptist Church ? 

2. The orderly manner in which they are 
prepared to enter into the formation of a 
new Church. 

This would be as follows: 

a. By having letters from the Churches 
of which they are members, which letters 
have been given either for the purpose of 
uniting in this new organization, or with 
which to unite in some other sister Church, 
but which would be equally valid for this 
purpose. If any of the letters had been 
held longer than the time to which their 
validity was limited, that fact would not 
necessarily make them worthless for this 
use, providing all the other members were 
satisfied with them. Bub if the Churches 
granting such letters are easily reached, it 
would be better to return them and obtain 
new ones. It is not, however, a vital point. 

b. There may be in the company somj 
who are baptized believers, but without let- 
ters — persons who have been long absent 



95 

from their Churches, and who, from neglect 
to take letters, or for other reasons, are 
without them. Or, possibly, persons who 
received baptism, but never entered into 
Church fellowship, or entered into the fel- 
lowship of some other denomination. Such 
persons could become constituent mem- 
bers of the new body on their experience, 
without letters, providing their Christian 
character was acceptable to their associates, 
and their views of doctrine and Church or- 
der in harmony with theirs. 

c. Beside these classes, there may be re- 
cent converts, or persons entertaining Chris- 
tian hopes, who have never been baptized, 
or made public Christian profession, who 
wish to unite in constituting the new 
Church. Such person might apply to any 
convenient Church for baptism and mem- 
bership, and then take letters and unite as 
others do. Or, what would, perhaps, be 
the more convenient, and probably the 
more agreeable — they could wait till the 
Church is organized, and then be received 
on a profession of faith and baptism to its 



96 

fellowship. Or— to which there could be 
no valid objection — if it appeared to be es- 
pecially desirable, by consent of the com- 
pany of disciples, who should listen to their 
experience, and approve, they could be 
baptized before the formal organization, for 
the purpose of uniting with the others as 
constituent members in forming the new 
Church. l 



II. — Churches that are Organized. 

The more common course, though, possi- 
bly, not the better, is for Churches to organ- 
ize first, and subsequently to call a Coun- 
cil, not to advise as to the wisdom of having 
a Church, but to say, on examination, if the 
organization is regular and the adopted ba- 
sis of doctrine and polity is in agreement 
with the denomination. And, if satisfied 
on these points, to express approval and 
fellowship — thus giving them recognition. 

1 Some public services are usually held to ex- 
press fellowship for and to give commendation to 
the new Church. See page 98. 



97 



In such a case, it will be observed . 

1. The purpose for which tne Council is 
called is not to advise as to whether there 
should be a Church formed, since that ques- 
tion is already settled by those calling the 
Council. A Church has already been 
formed. 

2. Nevertheless, if the Council becomes 
convinced that the organization was un- 
called for, immature or )therwise undesir- 
able, they should not hesitate to give that 
opinion, as a reason why they cannot ap- 
prove their proceedings, however regular 
their course of action and orthodox their 
basis. 

3. But if this question, touching the wis- 
dom of an organization, be found satisfac- 
tory, or if it be taken for granted and not 
inquired into at all, then the Council will 
proceed to examine the regularity of their 
action in organization and the soundness of 
their creed basis. The course here to be pur- 
sued is the same as in the preceding case, 1 

1 See pp. 92-96. 



98 



viz.: To ascertain if the letters by which 
the members united in the organization 
were regular and if their articles of faith, 
Church polity and order are in harmony 
with common usages. 

4. If, in all these respects, the Council be 
satisfied, they vote their approval and pro- 
ceed to a public recognition, by some ser- 
vices, such as the people may desire and 
the Council agree to hold. "What shall be 
the form or order of these public services 
is a matter of no importance. More com- 
monly, a sermon is preached by some one 
selected. Or there may be several short 
addresses, with singing and prayer. The 
simple object of the service is to give the 
new Church recognition and fellowship be- 
fore the people, and commend them to the 
confidence and favor of the community in 
which they are located, and the Churches 
with which they come into fellowship. 

5. New Churches usually desire to unite 
with the Association in whose field of oper- 
ation they are situated. If a Council has 
recognized a Church, that fact would give 



99 



additional assurance of its regular and or- 
derly character. But an Association is a 
separate and independent body, and, on ex- 
amination of Churches applying for mem- 
bership, will exercise its own discretion as 
to their reception, whether such Churches 
have or have not been recognized by a 
Council. Council action here, as elsewhere, 
is a matter of order and expediency, not of 
authority or necessity. 



100 

Councils on Church Difficulties. 

A not unfrequent occasion for the calling 
of a Council is that of difficulties arising 
within the Churches themselves, and which, 
for some reason, they find it hard to settle 
satisfactorily among themselves. Thus 
they are led to ask advice from without. 

It is probably safe to say that two-thirds 
of such cases of Church trouble arise from 
misjudged or mismanaged cases of disci- 
pline. Our Churches do not have too much 
discipline — they have, indeed, too little — 
but it is often so unwisely administered as 
to produce more evil by the method than 
is corrected by the act. It may be too 
much influenced by personal animosities, 
by a party spirit, or by ignorance of the 
true principles on which all discipline 
should be exercised. Such proceeding, 
even when begun under sufficient provoca- 
tion, may degenerate into a mere party or 
personal conflict for supremacy, in which 
leading members and related families be- 
come identified, and perhaps the pastor 



101 

himself is involved. Alienations are pro- 
duced, bitter feelings engendered, and dis- 
cords rend the body of Christ. The exam- 
ple becomes a reproach; bad men rejoice, 
and the good are grieved. Injustice has 
most likely been done, if not by the final 
act, yet by some of the passionate and ill- 
advised proceedings leading to it. Unable 
to harmonize their difficulties, a Council is 
called to aid and advise them. Each party 
of course believes itself right, and as firmly 
holds the other to be wrong. 

All that a Council can do is to hear pa- 
tiently the statements of all parties; cor- 
roborate, or disprove confused assertions, 
so far as possible, by collateral testimony; 
sift the mass of excited personalities from 
the vital facts and the underlying principles 
involved; make a careful statement of the 
substance of the case, what and where they 
think the mistake and the wrong have been, 
and advise what course should be pursued 
by the parties involved. The Council has, 
of course, no authority or power to enforce 
penalties, or to compel the acceptance or 



102 

performance of its recommendations. But 
if the advice be carefully and kindly given, 
the public sentiment will sustain it, and 
bear with a heavy moral force against those 
who do not accept it. 

One very common and very serious diffi- 
culty is, that Councils called for such pur- 
poses do not take sufficient time to thor- 
oughly understand the merits of the case, 
and to put in proper form and statement 
their findings. The members have little 
time to devote to other people's concerns, 
and but little patience to unravel the con- 
fused tangle of personal contentions, which 
have run through months and years of con- 
flict. And so they are likely to hurry 
through the examination, make a hasty and 
not too well-considered report, and return 
to their homes. The report, which was 
kindly meant to be equitable to all parties, 
very likely will not be acceptable to any; 
and the conflict will continue. While this 
result may indeed transpire, after the most 
patient and considerate action, owing to 
the perversity of the contestants, yet a 



103 

Council, when called for advice, should 
give all the time and careful investigation 
to the case which the gravity of such mat- 
ters demands. If the petty squabbles of 
misguided good men and women do not 
deserve this, the peace of the Church, the 
cultivation of Christian virtue and the honor 
of the Christian name are worthy of such 
labor for their maintenance. 

The order of proceedings in a Council 
called for such a purpose, would be sub- 
stantially as follows: 

1. The Council is to be organized the 
same as for any other purpose, by the elec- 
tion of a moderator and clerk; by prayer 
for Divine direction; by the preparation of 
a list of messengers, showing how many 
are present, and how many and what 
Churches they represent ; and then by a 
distinct and definite statement of the ob- 
ject for which they are convened. This 
statement may be made by the moderator, 
or by those who have called the Coun- 
cil. The specific object for which it is 
called should be kept in view during all 



104 

the proceedings, and no foreign or extrane- 
ous subjects should be admitted, except as 
evidence, or for the elucidation of the main 
question. Of the relevancy of such subjects 
the moderator will judge; and if his deci- 
sions be doubted, the Council will decide 
by a vote. 

2. Those who have called the Council will 
then present the case as they desire to have 
it stand before the body. In doing this, 
they will pursue their own course, and make 
such a presentation as they may choose, 
embracing statements, documentary evi- 
dence and the testimony of witnesses. 

3. If it be a mutual Council, the party 
which considers itself aggrieved and seeks 
redress will make a presentation of their 
case first; a full statement of all the facts 
bearing on it, with the testimony of wit- 
nesses, if desired. 

4. Following such a presentation the 
other party will make their statements, with 
such collateral evidence as they desire to 
offer, and such reply to the statement of the 
other side as they may wish to present. 






105 

5. To this a rejoinder of the first party 
may be made, with explanations, refuta- 
tions and new evidence, if any. And to 
this a re-rejoinder by the second party is 
allowed. 

The discussion should close when the 
Council is satisfied that all the facts, in their 
proper relations, are before them, so that 
they fully understand the case on which 
they are to express an opinion. And no 
discussion or recrimination between the 
parties, contradicting or answering back, 
should be allowed. No other interruptions 
than asking or answering questions, by per- 
mission of the moderator, should be per- 
mitted, otherwise irritations will be in- 
creased instead of being allayed. 

7. If it be an ex parte Council, where there 
is no second party to object, reply or make 
counter-statements, then, after the case is 
presented, they may be questioned by the 
moderator, or by any member of the Coun- 
cil, and cross- questioned, not for the pur- 
pose of vexing or confusing , the witnesses, 
but to elicit the fullest information on the 
subject. 



106 

8. Parties, while presenting their case, 
should not be interrupted, beyond the ask- 
ing of simple questions for a clearer under- 
standing of statements made. But all con- 
troversy and disputation, and all vexatious 
questions, should be avoided. The moder- 
ator should protect all parties in the exer- 
cise of their rights, that the simple truth 
may be reached. 

9. It would not be in accordance with 
usage, nor consistent with the principles on 
which such references proceed, for parties in 
difficulty to procure the services of lawyers, 
the more skillfully to present and defend 
their cause. But there could be no obj ection 
if such parties deemed themselves unable to 
do their case justice, to have some member 
of the Council act for them in the matter. 
No person, however, outside the Council 
and the parties in difficulty, could have any 
right to appear before the body in advocacy; 
if they so appeared at all, it would be only 
by permission of the Council, and of the 
parties calling it. 

10. As the single object in statement and 



107 

discussion should be the attainment of truth, 
by the ascertainment of facts, therefore the 
technicalities of legal proceedings in secular 
courts need not be regarded; though parlia- 
mentary rules and good order should be 
strictly maintained in. the investigation and 
discussions. 

11. When all the evidence is in, and all 
the facts are understood, it is voted that 
the case be closed, the parties retire —spec- 
tators, too, if such be present — and the 
Council goes into private session for delib- 
eration. 

12. In such private session there is a 
free and full discussion of the subject. Per- 
haps the moderator sums up the case by 
presenting, in condensed form, the various 
points which constitute its substance. If 
there be any disagreement of recollection 
as to facts or evidence, the parties can be 
recalled to repeat their statements. Then 
a committee is usually appointed to embody 
the results of their deliberations in certain 
resolutions or propositions. This is some- 
times called the " findings " of the Council, 



108 

and is two-fold, as containing: 1. the sub- 
stance or results of the case as they under- 
stand it; 2. The opinion expressed by the 
Council, or the advice given to the parties 
asking counsel. 

13. It would seem proper that in making 
up these " findings," no statement or resolu- 
tion should be adopted by a mere majority 
vote; nothing except what can be unani- 
mously agreed to by the entire Council. 

14 "When this work is completed, the 
parties are called in, and the moderator an- 
nounces the result, reading the statement. 
This statement when once made, after a 
careful deliberation, and on the basis of 
facts as presented, is understood not to be 
subject to revision or change. And yet it is 
supposable that a case might occur w T here 
facts or evidence had clearly been misap- 
prehended, and the findings might, by 
unanimous consent, be modified according- 
ly. But this could not take place after the 
Council had finally adjourned. 

15. It is usual to give the parties which 
called the Council authenticated copies of 



109 

the proceedings and results; and also to 
order their publication, if thought proper. 

These statements cover the ground of 
Council action in ordinary cases. Extra- 
ordinary cases develop peculiar features, 
which must be judged by general princi- 
ples, and the good sense of the Council, 
which, it must be assumed, is impartially 
disposed to know the facts, and to act in 
kindness and equity towards all concerned. 

Very likely the result will not be satis- 
factory to the parties. The advice given 
may be rejected. Another Council, com- 
posed of the same or of different individ- 
uals, may be convened. But after a com- 
pany of unbiassed Christian men, who have 
no personal ends to gain, have expressed 
their opinions, and given their advice, it is 
better quietly to abide by the result, and 
allow the matter to rest, rather than to 
keep alive dissension and protract strife 
to the reproach of religion. Unless, in- 
deed, there be some very grave and clearly 
justifiable reason for protracting the case. 



110 

Councils in Case of Excluded Members. 

Another not uncommon occasion for the 
calling of Councils is that for advice in the 
case of excluded members. This is a branch 
of the subject treated in the preceding sec- 
tion. Such excluded members very com- 
monly, and perhaps very naturally, believe 
themselves to have been unfairly dealt 
with, and unjustly excluded. This feeling 
is the more likely to possess their minds if 
they have occupied a somewhat prominent 
position in the Church, and if the disciplin- 
ary course which led to the final excision was 
protracted and exciting. Then it is likely 
to be regarded as the act of a hostile party 
in the Church, and not of the Church itself; 
as the result of passion, and not an act of 
justice. 

Now, while the presumption is that in 
such cases the Church is right in its action, 
and the individual is justly disfellow- 
shiped, the fact may be — and sometimes is — 
that the action of the Church has been mis- 
judged and wrong, and the individual has 






Ill 

just cause for complaint. This is most like- 
ly to occur where the exclusion is the is- 
sue of a protracted dissension between con- 
tending factions, maintained by headstrong 
leaders and partisan adherents. More- 
over, it is sometimes true that, while the 
individual justly deserved discipline, and 
possibly even exclusion, on the merits of 
his case, yot the manner in which the case 
was managed and the method by which the 
result was reached were improper, ill-con- 
sidered and unjust to him. 

For these reasons, if for no others, an ex- 
cluded member has a right to lay his griev- 
ance before a Council, and ask such relief 
as their opinion and advice may afford. If 
it were not so, and if, as is by some claimed, 
an excluded member should not be allowed 
the right of calling a Council, then such 
prohibition must be urged on the ground 
either that the Church could do no wrong, 
or else that an excluded member should 
have no remedy for the wrongs inflicted on 
him by unjust Church action; both of which 
suppositions would be monstrous. 



112 

Church independency and personal liber- 
ty are both to be conceded and defended. 
If any man believes himself to have been 
wronged, he has the inalienable and un- 
doubted right to lay the facts before any 
one man, or any fifty men, and ask their 
opinion and advice. When a Church has 
excluded a member, their connection with 
him and control over him ceases. They 
have no further right to say what he shall 
or shall not do, nor what others shall or 
shall not do respecting him. And for 
Churches and ministers to enter into a 
compact — formal or implied — that, because 
he is an excluded man, they will not even 
hear his statement, nor give him advice, 
would be the most intolerable religious ty- 
ranny — especially for freedom-loving Bap- 
tists. Such a proscription would approach 
the anathema of Papal excommunication. 
A Church may exscind a member judged 
unworthy, after due process of disciplinary 
law. But having cut him off, they cannot 
continue to hold the rod in terror over him, 
and bar from him the counsel and even the 



113 

sympathy of all others, singly on the ground 
of their action. 

While, therefore, the presumption is that 
the action of the Church in disfellowship 
has been just and right, as against the in- 
dividual, the possibility is that such action 
may have been unjust and oppressive. And 
such a possibility entitles the individual to 
a hearing before a Council of his brethren, 
should he so desire, not being able to find 
relief in any other way. 

It has already been stated that a Church 
may err and invalidate its final action of 
disfellowship by irregular and unfair 
methods of procedure in discipline, as 
well as for — and perhaps more frequently 
than by — insufficient cause in exclusion. 



What Causes Invalidate Church Action ? 

What, therefore, are the more common 
mistakes in processes of Church discipline, 
which would invalidate final action, and 
give an excluded member good reason to 
complain of injustice to himself? 



114 

1. He might claim that his exclusion was 
for insufficient cause, even when the pro- 
ceedings which led to that result were or- 
derly and fair. 

2. No " first steps'' may have been taken 
by those whom he had offended, in case his 
offense was a personal one. 1 No matter 
of personal difficulty should be brought be- 
fore the Church, until the aggrieved mem- 
ber, who brings the charge, shall first have 
faithfully pursued the course given in the 
18th of Matthew. If it be, he who brings 
it subjects himself to complaint and disci- 
pline for so doing. 

3. The Church may proceed to act on 
his case without having given him copies of 
the charges against him, or without giving 
him an opportunity to hear witnesses against 
him, or to cite witnesses on his own behalf. 
All this would be unfair. 

4. They may take final action on his case 
on some unusual occasion, at some meeting 

2 See a fuller discussion of the matter of disci- 
pline in the Star Book on Church Polity. 



115 

other than those at which such business 
was usually done, and without due notice 
to himself and friends, that his case was 
then to be decided. 

5. A refusal to give him a full opportuni- 
ty for defending himself before the Church 
as a body, rather than before the officers or 
some committee, privately. 

Other irregularities might occur, but the 
above named are such as are most likely to 
take place. 



What Course shall He Pursue ? 

It would be a great piece of folly for 
every excluded member, exasperated at 
what he deemed unfair treatment, to under- 
take immediately to precipitate a Council, 
in the hope that they would right his 
wrongs, and antagonize the Church on his , 
behalf. There are certain preliminary steps 
for him to take in order to justify the ac- 
tion of a Council for his relief. 

"What are these preliminary steps ? 

1. He should, after a little time, and 



116 

when the heat of excitement has died down, 
make his appeal to the Church for a re- 
hearing of his case. In this he should give 
his reasons for claiming that he did not 
have a fair trial, and that he was misjudged. 
If a rehearing should be granted, with the 
opportunities he claims, then he has noth- 
ing to do but to submit to the result. If the 
rehearing be granted, but with similar ir- 
regularities as before, then he is left in the 
same attitude as at the end of the first trial. 
If the rehearing be refused, then: 

2. He should request them to unite with 
him in calling a mutual Council. If this re- 
quest be granted, he will have the selection 
of one-half of the Council. Whatever the re- 
sult, it would be unwise for him to attempt 
to prosecute the matter further. At any rate, 
the action of a Council so convened must 
be very extraordinary, to justify him in any 
farther attempts at self- vindication. If this 
request for a mutual Council be declined 
by the Church, then : 

3. He might present himself to some 
other Church, and request to be received 



117 

to its fellowship, on his experience, but as 
an excluded member; or he might request 
any Church to call a Council on his behalf. 
This, however, they would not be likely to 
do, since it might seem to put them in an 
attitude hostile to the excluding Church. 
But the Church applied to might, at its 
own option, think best to call a Council for 
advice, before receiving him to member- 
ship. Should the Church, however, see fit 
to receive him, as it would have an un- 
doubted right to do without a Council, 
that would dispose of the case finally, and 
he would have no occasion to pursue the 
case further. And it would be the height 
of folly for the Church which excluded him 
to ask a Council to reprove the Church 
which received him. But should the Church 
appealed to, for any reason, decline to re- 
ceive him, and also decline to call a Coun- 
cil, then : 

4. He might with propriety — and it would 
be his right and privilege to do so, as the 
only further step towards redress — call an 
ex-parte Council, before which the whole 



118 

matter could be laid; both as to bis trial 
and exclusion, and also as to bis subse- 
quent efforts for reconciliation. Of course 
be should have documentary evidence, and 
such testimony as might be needed to sub- 
stantiate his own statements, and place his 
case in the strongest light before such a 
Council when convened. 

5. Any one calling a Council should have 
a clear and definite idea of what it can, and 
of what it cannot do. Otherwise he may be 
much disappointed in the result. He must 
not expect a Council to right all his wrongs, 
fancied or real, to redress all of his griev- 
ances, to punish the Church for what he 
believes, or even they may think, misjudged 
and unjust action in his case. The func- 
tions of a Council not being judicial, but 
simply advisory, they can, at most, only ex- 
press an opinion on the merits of the case, 
and give him advice. Even the expression 
of an opinion on the merits of the case they 
may withhold, but some advice they are 
bound to give, since it was for that purpose 
they accepted the invitation to sit as coun- 



119 

selors. The moral effect of their opinion 
and advice constitutes the only vindication 
or condemnation they have the power to 
pronounce. 



120 

Councils on Unworthy Ministers. 

One of the most grave and difficult cases 
of Council action is that of a minister of the 
Gospel who has lost the public confidence, 
and who, by unchristian or unministerial 
conduct, is, to an extent, believed to be unfit 
to discharge the functions of or to remain 
in the sacred office. 

Such cases are important and difficult, 
because : 

First, the high position and wide influ- 
ence of a minister, and the fact that he 
stands before the public as an example of 
godliness, a religious teacher and leader of 
the people, if he prove himself an unworthy 
man, make his example more a reproach 
and scandal to religion, and more an ob- 
stacle to the progress of the truth, than if he 
were a private individual. And the purity 
of the ministerial character and the honor 
of the Christian profession must be vindi- 
cated and maintained. 

Second, a minister's character and good 
name must be held sacredly and dealt with 



121 

tenderly, since they are his richest posses- 
sions, and all he has as a means of useful- 
ness, for the maintenance of a respectable 
position in society, or the continued sup- 
port of himself and family in the ordinary 
comforts of life. When these are gone, all 
is gone of worldly worth. They must not 
be trifled with. 

The following facts are to be kept in 
mind in the call of such a Council : 

1. As in all other cases, it must be re- 
membered that all Baptist Councils are 
advisory only, and never authoritative. 
They are called to express opinions on a 
given case submitted to them, and advise 
those who have convened them in reference 
to that case. 

2. Neither ministers nor others can or- 
ganize themselves into a Council, nor, self- 
moved and unasked, call one for the trial of 
a fellow minister whose presence may be 
unwelcome to them, and in whose charac- 
ter they may have no confidence. Such 
cases have sometimes occurred. But such 
an act is a gross outrage on personal rights 



122 

and Church independency, as well as a vio- 
lation of Baptist polity, by an assumption of 
authority not possessed. 

3. A Council called to advise in matters 
looking to the trial of an accused minister, 
can only be called by a Church; and by 
that Church of which such minister is a 
member. Any other Church might call a 
Council to advise them what course they 
ought to take in respect to the fellowship 
of the Church which was sustaining a min- 
ister whom they believed unworthy. A par- 
ty in a Church — even a very small party — 
might call a Council to advise them as to 
their duty, if their Church was sustaining 
a minister in whom they had no confidence. 
But in neither of these cases could a Coun- 
cil pronounce an opinion on the character 
of the man himself. They could only advise 
the parties calling as to their duty in rela- 
tion to the Church which defended and 
upheld him, admitting his case to be as 
charged. 

4. A Council having no ecclesiastical au- 
thority, cannot be called to try, and if found 



123 

guilty, to depose a minister. Judicial acts 
belong to a Church, and not to a Council. 
Nor can a Church transfer to a Council its 
authority for the exercise of such judicial 
functions. The Council, in order to give an 
opinion, is asked to examine all the facts, 
consider all the circumstances, sift and 
weigh all the evidence on both sides; the 
accused having full opportunity to defend 
himself. In a modified sense — but not in a 
judicial sense — it may be called a trial of 
the accused, because it is a search for the 
merits of the case by an investigation of 
all the facts, and a balancing of all the evi- 
dence. 

5. The minister on whose case his Church 
may call a Council, is not obliged, and can- 
not be compelled to appear before such a 
Council, nor in any way submit his case to 
them. He is amenable to the Church 
alone. But it is his right to appear before 
them if he desires, have copies of the 
charges, hear the testimony, examine wit- 
nesses, and answer for himself. And it is 
better, usually, for him to take this course, 



124 

than to stand upon reserved rights, and 
treat a Council with disregard. The pre- 
sumption is that a company of Christian 
men will judge impartially, on the evidence 
placed before them. And though this pre- 
sumption may not always be realized, it is 
better for one to meet all charges frankly, 
and all accusers face to face, than to seem to 
evade an investigation of matters laid 
against him. 

6. Tiiere is no inherent necessity in the 
case, for the calling of a Council at all for 
the trial and discipline of a minister. If 
done at all, it is done for expediency and 
not from necessity, for order and safety, and 
not for authority. But because the influ- 
ence of a minister is more widely felt for 
good or ill; because many Churches are 
small as to numbers, and inexperienced in 
the treatment of difficult cases; because in 
serious and complicated disciplinary pro- 
ceedings there is likely to be much irrita- 
bility of feeling, when even good men are 
swayed too much by party zeal, prejudice 
or passion — therefore it is wise to call in 



125 

the experienced, prudent and impartial, for 
advice. Such advice will invest the Church's 
final action with weight, and give the pub- 
lic greater assurance of its equity and just- 
ice. 

7. In most cases of this kind, where it is 
thought needful to resort to a Council, it 
would be wise to make it a mutual Council, 
between the Church and the accused. He 
would then have the privilege of selecting 
ona-half the members of it. If this be not 
done, and the result be unfavorable to him, 
he will be almost sure, with the advice of 
friends — for he will have friends — to call 
another Council to counteract the influence 
of the first, and to place his case in a more 
favorable light before the public. 

8. After the investigation has closed, and 
the Council has rendered its opinion and 
advice, the Church will take such action as, 
in view of such opinion and advice, and all 
the facts, may be deemed wise and right. 
They are not compelled to follow the advice 
given. The Council has no power to en- 
force its recommendations, and should have 



126 

no desire to do so. The responsibility of 
final action lies with the Church. But the 
advice given would naturally constitute an 
important element in their final decision. 
And it would require very weighty reasons 
to justify a Church in acting contrary to the 
opinion of a Council of their own selection. 
Such a case would seldom occur. 

9. The final action of the Church as to 
an accused minister, may take any one of 
the following forms: 

a. That of an entire acquittal of blame, 
where no fault was proven against him; the 
charges were not sustained. 

b. That of admonition, where indiscre- 
tions were shown which hindered his use- 
fulness, giving occasion for suspicion and 
remark from those who are without, being 
magnified by the enemies of religion. To 
caution and admonish to greater circum- 
spection may be all which the case requires. 

c. That of withdrawing fellowship from 
him as a minister of the gospel, and declar- 
ing him, in their opinion, unworthy of, and 
unfit to continue in, the ministerial office. 



127 

This may be done, and the man still re- 
tained in the fellowship of the Church as a 
private member ; since there may be faults 
which would disqualify him for the exercise 
of a public ministry, which might not neces- 
sarily disqualify him for a private Church 
membership. Such an act of disfellow- 
ship, as a minister of the gospel, would be 
virtually an act of deposition from the 
sacred office, so far as any act of the Church 
or Council could depose. 

d. That of a withdrawal of the hand of 
fellowship from him as a Church member, 
excluding him from fellowship in the body. 
This, accompanied with a declaration of 
his unworthiness as a minister of the gos- 
pel, constitutes the final and utmost act of 
the Church's disciplinary power in such a 
case. They can go no farther. This, so 
far as a Church can put a man out of the 
ministry, deposes him from it, and clears 
the body from any further accountability 
as to his conduct. His disfellowship as a 
member adds emphasis to his disfellowship 
as a minister. 



128 

To the above-named acts a Council may 
advise; but the acts themselves, to be valid 
and of any force, must be the acts of the 
Church, and not of the Council. It would 
be an impertinent assumption for a Council 
to attempt such acts of ecclesiastical au- 
thority. 

10. If the action of Council and Church 
in case of a minister under discipline, be 
unfavorable to such minister, and result 
in his degradation or exclusion, he will be 
likely to feel that injustice has been done 
him, and seek for relief in the calling of 
another Council. If the former one was a 
mutual Council, in the calling of which he 
had part, it would be unwise for him to go 
further, except, indeed, under extraordi- 
nary circumstances. If the former were 
an ex parte Council, called by the Church, 
without his consent, there would be more 
excuse for him to call another, if advised to 
it by wise and prudent friends. It cer- 
tainly would be his right to do so, however 
unwise it might seem, should he be so dis- 
posed. The fewer Councils the better. It 



129 

is quite as well to suffer for want of them, 
as to suffer by means of them. 

Should he decide to call another, he 
should observe three rules: 

a. Invite the Church to unite with him 
m making it a mutual Council, in whose 
judgments all parties might acquiesce. 

b. Have, if possible, the Council larger 
than the previous one, and still more 
marked for wisdom and experience. Some 
would say, Let the new Council be com- 
posed entirely of new men, since those of 
the previous one, having already judged 
the case, would hardly re-judge it with im- 
partiality. Others would say, let it be com- 
posed largely of the same men, with others 
added, to add experience, and to counteract 
any local or personal prejudice that may 
have previously existed. 

c. Such Council, when convened, should 
carefully confine its action to the object of 
its call. It should not traverse the action 
of the previous Council, nor of the Church, 
and should consider them only so far as to 
obtain information, in order that they 



130 

might justly and wisely give counsel to 
those who convened it. 

By such a course fhe action of Councils 
will, so far as practicable, prove conserva- 
tive and beneficent, vindicating the right, 
and giving furtherance to equity and truth. 









y ^ -. 




^ ^ 
x ^. 



• o- 













% «>** 






V' 






i- t 



i/ 



^ > 



*' 






Jp<5» 



~' *. 










<*v 



* s V T * 



*<<? 







I 






V s 



,\* 







^ 



-S $ % 



O '/ , 



-/ ^ 



^ v* % 













V ,G* 






.-0 



, I » 



i0 V 



u * ; * 






v v 



'- -' 




, x f v -^ 


















)o 








*<> 






















^ 













.tf 



^ ^ 




A^ % >° 



